Union Of India Thru. General ... vs Pinki And 4 Others

Union Of India Thru. General Manager,North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

Pinki And 4 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)

:

Deepanshu Dass

Counsel for Respondent(s)

:

Court No. - 20

HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 27.04.2022 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Case No.OA/II/U/775/2013 whereby the claim petition filed by the respondents-claimants was allowed and appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest from the date of order.

2. The factual matrix of the matter is that the deceased, Mazid Hasan Khan, was travelling by Train No. 52240 from Lucknow City to Gola Gokaran Nath with a valid ticket. During the course of the journey, he allegedly fell from the train, sustained injuries, and died. Consequently, the respondents filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow wherein the appellant filed a written statement submitting that the deceased had in fact committed suicide by jumping in front of a train, and therefore, he was not a bona fide passenger within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act and, therefore, the claim petition may be dismissed. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question?

2. Whether incident of death of the deceased falls under the ambit of an untoward incident as defined u/s 123 (c) (2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 19897

3. Whether the applicants are only dependants of the deceased?

4. To what relief?"

3. After hearing the parties and examining the documents and evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death resulted from an accidental fall from the train. Accordingly, compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- was awarded to the claimants by judgment and order dated 27.04.2022. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that two days prior to the incident, the deceased had attempted to commit suicide but was saved by his family members, and this fact was reported in a local newspaper. It is further submitted that the said report, produced as evidence, indicates that the deceased was suffering from various ailments and was under severe financial distress. Despite the earlier failed attempt, on 10.08.2013, the deceased allegedly jumped in front of a train and died.

5. It is further argued that R.W.-1, Khushiram Rawat, a Sub-Inspector in the Railways, conducted an inquiry and recorded statements of eyewitnesses, including Mahendra Singh (Gateman) and Jagdish Prasad, both of whom categorically stated that the deceased had jumped in front of the train.

6. It is contended that the DRM report, placed before the Tribunal, was not properly appreciated, as it clearly indicated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger but had jumped in front of an oncoming train. Likewise, the report of the Inspector Incharge, Railway Protection Force, revealed that the deceased was suffering from illness, was under heavy debt due to business losses, and had previously attempted suicide.

7. The appellant further submits that statements of the driver and gateman recorded during the investigation, placed before the Tribunal, also support the case of suicide. It is also pointed out that although the deceased allegedly purchased a ticket at 02:38 p.m., the incident occurred at about 09:30 p.m., despite the journey duration being only about four hours, suggesting that the claim was fabricated to obtain compensation as he bought the ticket and then committed suicide. It is also submitted that the report of the Investigating Officer was duly proved, and he was subjected to cross-examination

8. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondents.

9. Heard Mr. Deepanshu Dass, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

10. It is evident from the material on record that the deceased had attempted suicide two days prior to the incident, which was reported in the newspaper, highlighting his medical condition and financial distress. It appears that after the failed attempt, he again took the extreme step on 10.08.2013 by jumping in front of a train. The timing of the ticket purchase and the incident further raises serious doubts and suggests that everything was preplanned and aimed at securing compensation for the family.

11. The Tribunal, while passing the impugned order, failed to properly appreciate the statements of the Investigating Officer and other witnesses, including the driver, guard, gateman, and an independent eyewitness, all of whom consistently stated that the deceased had jumped in front of the train. These materials remained unrebutted by the claimants.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is clear case that the deceased had died not by falling off the train but because of jumping in front of the upcoming train holding a valid ticket would not make deceased a bona fide passenger.

13. Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 is as follows:-

"Section 124A:- Compensation on account of untoward incident.- When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the department of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only of loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident:

Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to-

(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;

(b) self-infficented injury;

(c) his own criminal act;

(d) any act omitted by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; (

e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, "passenger" includes- (i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii)a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident."

14. Since in the instant matter the deceased died because of committing suicide hence, no compensation shall be payable as per Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 accordingly, the instant appeal stands allowed. The impugned order dated 27.04.2022 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Case No.OA/II/U/775/2013 is set aside.

15. The money deposited with the Tribunal, if any, may be refunded to the appellant.

(Prashant Kumar,J.)

May 6, 2026

Saurabh Yadav/-