Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33030 (PNJ)

(O&M) UOI v. KAMLESH RANI

FAO/2230/2001 · 2025-09-03

Pankaj Jain

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

FAO-2230-2001 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 319 FAO-2230-2001 (O&M) Date of decision : 03.09.2025 Union of India ...... Appellant versus Kamlesh Rani and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. N.K. Vashisht, Senior Panel Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Paramjeet Singh, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Surender Dhull, Advocate for the respondents. **** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. Union of India is in appeal against the award passed by RCT, Chandigarh dated 05.03.2001, whereby the claimants have been awarded compensation of Rs.4 lakhs on account of death of Ram Mehar Singh a Sergent in the Indian Air Force, who died on the intervening night of 17th and 18th October, 1998 in an untoward incident while travelling by rail. 2. The only issue raised by Mr. Vashisht is regarding finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.4. He submits that as per evidence on record, deceased tried to board a moving train, which resulted in his death and thus, he cannot be held to have died in an untoward incident. Rather, he died of his own negligence. As per the evidence on record, the claimant along with his family was travelling in the train from Delhi to Mauruani Junction. On asking of his children, the deceased went to DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.10 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2230-2001 (O&M) fetch water and was standing on the door waiting for the train to stop. Suddenly, owing to change of track, there was a jerk and the deceased fell down, which led to loss of his life. 3. In view of the above and the fact that there is no evidence to show that the deceased had any intent to take his own life, this Court finds that the issue is squarely covered against the appellant in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, 2019 (3) SCC 572. 4. In view of above, finding no merits in the present appeal, the same is ordered to be dismissed. 5. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 03.09.2025 Dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : No DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.10 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document