FAO-115-2018 (O&M) [218] Nisha Seth Union of India Coram : Present: PANKAJ JAIN [1] Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh. [2] death of Vinod Kumar. As per the claimant, Vinod Kumar was working as Car Seat Cover Maker at Rajp Cantt. to Rajpura and was holding Monthly Season Ticket (MST) No.90345457 valid from 13.03.2014 to 12.04.2014. On 21.03.2014, deceased boarded Train No.14526 from Rajpura. While the train was passing through Stat moving Train at KM No.269/28 and died on the spot. During physical search of the dead body of the deceased, Monthly Season Ticket as detailed hereinabove was recovered. Claimant thus, claimed that the dec a bona fide railways, she is entitled to compensation. [3] (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-115 Date of Decision : Nisha Seth versus Union of India HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Mr. Atul Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Parvesh Kumar Saini, Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent *** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Challenge is to Award dated 04.08.2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh. Claim petition was filed seeking compensation on account of death of Vinod Kumar. As per the claimant, Vinod Kumar was working as Car Seat Cover Maker at Rajpura. He has daily travelling from Ambala Cantt. to Rajpura and was holding Monthly Season Ticket (MST) 45457 valid from 13.03.2014 to 12.04.2014. On 21.03.2014, deceased boarded Train No.14526 from Rajpura. While the train was passing through Station Yard, Ambala City, Vinod Kumar fell down from moving Train at KM No.269/28 and died on the spot. During physical search of the dead body of the deceased, Monthly Season Ticket as detailed hereinabove was recovered. Claimant thus, claimed that the dec bona fide passenger having lost his life in an untoward incident involving , she is entitled to compensation. Claim petition was resisted by Railways, claiming that deceased IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 115-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.03.2025 …Appellant ….Respondent PANKAJ JAIN Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Parvesh Kumar Saini, Advocate with Mr. Ashutosh for the respondent-UOI. Award dated 04.08.2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh. Claim petition was filed seeking compensation on account of death of Vinod Kumar. As per the claimant, Vinod Kumar was working as ura. He has daily travelling from Ambala Cantt. to Rajpura and was holding Monthly Season Ticket (MST) 45457 valid from 13.03.2014 to 12.04.2014. On 21.03.2014, deceased boarded Train No.14526 from Rajpura. While the train was ion Yard, Ambala City, Vinod Kumar fell down from moving Train at KM No.269/28 and died on the spot. During physical search of the dead body of the deceased, Monthly Season Ticket as detailed hereinabove was recovered. Claimant thus, claimed that the deceased being lost his life in an untoward incident involving Claim petition was resisted by Railways, claiming that deceased 1 Mr. Ashutosh Award dated 04.08.2017 passed by the Railway Claim petition was filed seeking compensation on account of death of Vinod Kumar. As per the claimant, Vinod Kumar was working as ura. He has daily travelling from Ambala Cantt. to Rajpura and was holding Monthly Season Ticket (MST) 45457 valid from 13.03.2014 to 12.04.2014. On 21.03.2014, deceased boarded Train No.14526 from Rajpura. While the train was ion Yard, Ambala City, Vinod Kumar fell down from moving Train at KM No.269/28 and died on the spot. During physical search of the dead body of the deceased, Monthly Season Ticket as detailed eased being lost his life in an untoward incident involving Claim petition was resisted by Railways, claiming that deceased RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.08 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-115-2018 (O&M) was travelling on MST from Rajpura to Ambala Cantt tried to deboard at Ambala City that too from the off be stated to have died in an untoward incident as he himself was negligent. [4] [5] MST. [6] deceased deliberately the platform. The same being not permissible under cannot be negligent. [7] relies upon ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of ‘ of India submits that a death or injury caused to the passenger in the course of boarding or deboarding the claimant is entitled to compensation. Ne negligence on the part of deceased/victim cannot be a ground to decline the claim. (O&M) was travelling on MST from Rajpura to Ambala Cantt tried to deboard at Ambala City that too from the off be stated to have died in an untoward incident as he himself was negligent. Tribunal framed following issues: “1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide pa rain at the time of incident? 2. Whether the alleged incident is covered within the ambit of Section 123(c) read with Section 124 Act? 3. Whether the applicant was the sole dependent of the deceased? 4. Relief. ” Issue No.1 was decided in favour of While deciding Issue Nos.2 & 3, Tribunal held that the deceased deliberately alighted from the moving train from the wrong side of the platform. The same being not permissible under cannot be said to have lost his life in an untoward incident as he himself was negligent. While assailing the impugned order, counsel for the appellant relies upon ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of ‘ versus Rina Devi’, (2019) 3 Supreme Court Cases 572 submits that a death or injury caused to the passenger in the course of boarding or deboarding the train itself amounts to an untoward incident and the claimant is entitled to compensation. Ne negligence on the part of deceased/victim cannot be a ground to decline the was travelling on MST from Rajpura to Ambala Cantt. Unauthorizedly, he tried to deboard at Ambala City that too from the off side and thus, he cannot be stated to have died in an untoward incident as he himself was negligent. Tribunal framed following issues:- Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the rain at the time of incident? Whether the alleged incident is covered within the ambit of Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railway Whether the applicant was the sole dependent of the in favour of the claimant in view of While deciding Issue Nos.2 & 3, Tribunal held that the alighted from the moving train from the wrong side of the platform. The same being not permissible under the Rules, deceased to have lost his life in an untoward incident as he himself was While assailing the impugned order, counsel for the appellant relies upon ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of ‘Union (2019) 3 Supreme Court Cases 572. submits that a death or injury caused to the passenger in the course of the train itself amounts to an untoward incident and the claimant is entitled to compensation. Negligence or contribut negligence on the part of deceased/victim cannot be a ground to decline the 2 authorizedly, he side and thus, he cannot be stated to have died in an untoward incident as he himself was negligent. ssenger of the Whether the alleged incident is covered within the ambit A of the Railway Whether the applicant was the sole dependent of the claimant in view of While deciding Issue Nos.2 & 3, Tribunal held that the alighted from the moving train from the wrong side of the Rules, deceased to have lost his life in an untoward incident as he himself was While assailing the impugned order, counsel for the appellant Union He submits that a death or injury caused to the passenger in the course of the train itself amounts to an untoward incident and gligence or contributory negligence on the part of deceased/victim cannot be a ground to decline the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.08 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-115-2018 (O&M) [8] as negligence on part of the deceased is concerned, the same is evident. It has come on record that he tried to himself responsible for the death. [9] through records of the case pleaded by the respondent case of injury suffered by victim while debo more res integra under:- [10] of India, 2010 AIR SC 3705 answer the same, analyzing the principles of contributory negligence of the passenger, observing as under: (O&M) Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that so far as negligence on part of the deceased is concerned, the same is evident. It as come on record that he tried to deboard himself responsible for the death. Having heard counsel for the parties and through records of the case, this Court finds that even if the best case pleaded by the respondent-UOI is taken to be on case of injury suffered by victim while debo res integra. Supreme Court in the “16.6 We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of ‘self inflicted injury’ would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on ‘no fault theory’. We may in this connection refer to judgment of this Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Sunil Kumar, 2017 (13) SCALE 652 laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on ‘no fault theory’ under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de boarding a train will be an ‘untoward incident’ entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso 124A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contri factor. ” Supreme Court in the case of ‘ of India, 2010 AIR SC 3705’, while answering answer the same, analyzing the principles of contributory negligence of the passenger, observing as under:- “7. ……. It is now to be seen, that under section 124A the for the respondent on the other hand submits that so far as negligence on part of the deceased is concerned, the same is evident. It deboard train from off side and was thus, Having heard counsel for the parties and after carefully go , this Court finds that even if the best case UOI is taken to be on face value, it will still be a case of injury suffered by victim while deboarding the train. The issue is no in the ‘Rina Devi’s case (supra) held as We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of ‘self inflicted injury’ would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be the case of liability based on ‘no fault theory’. We may in this connection refer to judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Sunil Kumar, 2018 (1) RCR (Civil) 680 : laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on ‘no fault theory’ of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de boarding a train will be an ‘untoward incident’ entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing Supreme Court in the case of ‘Jameela and others vs. Union ’, while answering question No.2 as referred to answer the same, analyzing the principles of contributory negligence of the ……. It is now to be seen, that under section 124A the 3 for the respondent on the other hand submits that so far as negligence on part of the deceased is concerned, the same is evident. It train from off side and was thus, going , this Court finds that even if the best case value, it will still be a rding the train. The issue is no ) held as We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of ‘self inflicted injury’ would require intention to inflict such injury and not Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be the case of liability based on ‘no fault theory’. We may in United India 2018 (1) RCR (Civil) 680 : laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on ‘no fault theory’ of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de- boarding a train will be an ‘untoward incident’ entitling a victim to Section buting Jameela and others vs. Union question No.2 as referred to answer the same, analyzing the principles of contributory negligence of the ……. It is now to be seen, that under section 124A the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.08 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-115-2018 (O&M) [11] by Supreme Co Tribunal on Issue Nos.2 to 4 cannot be sustained and are hereby ordered to be set aside passenger died in an untoward incident, entitled for compensation as per the Schedule appended the Railway Claims Tribunal Rules. (O&M) liability to pay compensation is regardless of any wrongfu act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration. But the proviso to the section says that the railway administration would have no liability to pay any compensation in case death of the passenger or injury to him was caused due to any o (a) to (e). 8. Coming back to the case in hand, it is not the case of the Railway that the death of M. Hafeez was a case of suicide or a result of self-inflicted injury. It is also not the case that he died due to his own criminal act or he was in a state of intoxication or he was insane, or he died due to any natural cause or disease. His falling down from the train was, thus, clearly accidental. 9. The manner in which the accident is sought to be reconstructed by the Railway, the deceased was standing at the open door of the train compartment from where he fell down, Page 6 of 14 is called by the railway itself as negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon on Indian trains is not the same thi criminal act mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to section 124A. A criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a negligent act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the railway must fail even after assuming everything in its favour.” The issue being squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court, this Court finds that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue Nos.2 to 4 cannot be sustained and are hereby ordered to set aside. It is held that the deceased-Vinod Kumar, who was a passenger died in an untoward incident, entitled for compensation as per the Schedule appended the Railway Claims Tribunal Rules. liability to pay compensation is regardless of any wrongfu act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration. But the proviso to the section says that the railway administration would have no liability to pay any compensation in case death of the passenger or injury to him was caused due to any of the reasons enumerated in clauses Coming back to the case in hand, it is not the case of the Railway that the death of M. Hafeez was a case of suicide inflicted injury. It is also not the case that he own criminal act or he was in a state of intoxication or he was insane, or he died due to any natural cause or disease. His falling down from the train was, thus, The manner in which the accident is sought to be he Railway, the deceased was standing at the open door of the train compartment from where he fell down, Page 6 of 14 is called by the railway itself as negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very uncommon on Indian trains is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to section 124A. A criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the railway must fail even after assuming everything in its favour.” The issue being squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down this Court finds that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue Nos.2 to 4 cannot be sustained and are hereby ordered to Vinod Kumar, who was a bona fide passenger died in an untoward incident, involving railways and is thus, entitled for compensation as per the Schedule appended the Railway Claims 4 liability to pay compensation is regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration. But the proviso to the section says that the railway administration would have no liability to pay any compensation in case death of the passenger or injury to him f the reasons enumerated in clauses Coming back to the case in hand, it is not the case of the Railway that the death of M. Hafeez was a case of suicide inflicted injury. It is also not the case that he own criminal act or he was in a state of intoxication or he was insane, or he died due to any natural cause or disease. His falling down from the train was, thus, The manner in which the accident is sought to be he Railway, the deceased was standing at the open door of the train compartment from where he fell down, Page 6 of 14 is called by the railway itself as negligence. Now negligence of this kind which is not very ng as a criminal act mentioned in clause (c) to the proviso to section 124A. A criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. Standing at the open doors of the compartment of a running train may be a act, even a rash act but, without anything else, it is certainly not a criminal act. Thus, the case of the railway The issue being squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down this Court finds that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue Nos.2 to 4 cannot be sustained and are hereby ordered to bona fide involving railways and is thus, entitled for compensation as per the Schedule appended the Railway Claims RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.08 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-115-2018 (O&M) [12] [13] along with interest @ 9% per annum from date of ac actual realization or an amount of Rs.8,00,000/ [14] disposed off 21.03.2025 ‘R. Sharma' (O&M) Allowed. The claimant shall be entitled for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/ along with interest @ 9% per annum from date of ac actual realization or an amount of Rs.8,00,000/ All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. 21.03.2025 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable The claimant shall be entitled for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/ along with interest @ 9% per annum from date of accident till the date of actual realization or an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- whichever is higher. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 5 The claimant shall be entitled for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- cident till the date of All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.04.08 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document