Railway tribunal asked to reconsider accident case
9 May 2012 3:16 AM GMT
Delhi high court has set aside an order of a Railway Tribunal, which had dismissed the petition of the family of a railway passenger for claim. The passenger had fell down from a running Indian Railways train and died.
The high court has asked the Tribunal to reconsider the case in the light of the entire evidence placed on record and not just post mortem and inquest report.
The deceased was an employee of a finance company at Okhla. In April 2010, he was travelling with his colleague from Okhla to Faridabad by an EMU train on a valid MST with identity card. Victim's family members alleged that there was heavy rush in the train due to which deceased and his colleague were compelled to stand near the entrance of the compartment. When the train started from Tughlaqabad Railway Station, it gave a sudden jerk and he fell down. Later he succumbed to his injuries and died on the spot.
Victim's family said that the incident was an 'untoward incident' as defined under the act. They said that the train in question was changing track when the deceased had fallen from the running train. An eyewitness, who was travelling with the deceased at the time of accident, had said the same thing.
The government had contended that that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and he sustained injuries due to his own negligence and fell from the running train and was not covered under the act. It said that the deceased had not fallen from the running train as injuries sustained by him were not possible by falling from the running train.
The DRM report on record filed by the Railways showed that the deceased had fallen from running train and due to the fall, he was run over by the train.
After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal held that victim's family had failed to prove their case and dismissed the claim application on the ground that alleged incident is not covered within the term 'untoward incident'.
While challenging the decision in the high court, victim's family members said that there is ample evidence to show that deceased was a bona fide passenger and he died as a result of 'untoward incident'.
'It is noted that the Tribunal while deciding the case has not considered the entire evidence on record and has only considered post mortem report and inquest report. In view of the above discussion, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to consider the entire evidence on record i.e. oral as well as documentary and thereafter return fresh findings on the issues,' said Justice Veena Birbal while setting aside the order of the tribunal.
The high court has asked the Tribunal to reconsider the case in the light of the entire evidence placed on record and not just post mortem and inquest report.
The deceased was an employee of a finance company at Okhla. In April 2010, he was travelling with his colleague from Okhla to Faridabad by an EMU train on a valid MST with identity card. Victim's family members alleged that there was heavy rush in the train due to which deceased and his colleague were compelled to stand near the entrance of the compartment. When the train started from Tughlaqabad Railway Station, it gave a sudden jerk and he fell down. Later he succumbed to his injuries and died on the spot.
Victim's family said that the incident was an 'untoward incident' as defined under the act. They said that the train in question was changing track when the deceased had fallen from the running train. An eyewitness, who was travelling with the deceased at the time of accident, had said the same thing.
The government had contended that that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and he sustained injuries due to his own negligence and fell from the running train and was not covered under the act. It said that the deceased had not fallen from the running train as injuries sustained by him were not possible by falling from the running train.
The DRM report on record filed by the Railways showed that the deceased had fallen from running train and due to the fall, he was run over by the train.
After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal held that victim's family had failed to prove their case and dismissed the claim application on the ground that alleged incident is not covered within the term 'untoward incident'.
While challenging the decision in the high court, victim's family members said that there is ample evidence to show that deceased was a bona fide passenger and he died as a result of 'untoward incident'.
'It is noted that the Tribunal while deciding the case has not considered the entire evidence on record and has only considered post mortem report and inquest report. In view of the above discussion, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to consider the entire evidence on record i.e. oral as well as documentary and thereafter return fresh findings on the issues,' said Justice Veena Birbal while setting aside the order of the tribunal.
Next Story
