FAO/214/2017 of JAGRAM & ORS Vs UNION OF INDIA

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+FAO 214/2017JAGRAM & ORS

..... Appellant

Through: Mr. Ajit Rajput, Mr. Raj Kumar Rajputand Mr. S.N. Pandey, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Shivankur Shukla, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRIO R R%05.02.2018

The appellants had filed claim for compensation on accountof demise of their son Ashish @ Priyanshu whose dead body wasfound on the railway tracks near Kunj Braj Vihar between Kmno.10/33 and 10/35.

It is the appellants’ case that on 19.12.2013 while travellingfrom Ghaziabad to Old Delhi Railway Station on second classjourney ticket, their son fell down near the aforementioned spot,perhaps due to sudden jolt received from inside the compartment ofthe train. He suffered grievous head injuries and died on the spot.His ticket was lost. The claim of him having left Ghaziabad for Delhiis on the basis of telephone call made by him to his father, prior tohis departure. The fact of his body being found near the railway tracksis not disputed since the local police had informed the Railway about

it.The mobile phone of the deceased was found near his body.However, the ticket was not found.No inquiry was done by theRailway. Indeed, one such inquiry was sought to be initiated after theclaim petition was filed on 28.10.2014.The Inquiry Report undersection 112 of the Railways Act, 1989 after gap of almost 18months would be of no consequence since the relevant evidencewould obviously not be available after such long gap. Accordingly,it could well be deemed to be of no value or consequence. Since theRailways had been intimated of the dead body near its tracks, the fiveexceptions under section 124-A of the Railway Act, 1989 would notbe available to them.

The learned counsel for the appellants relies upon the decisionof the Supreme Court in Kalandi Charan Sahoo and Anr. v. GeneralManager, South-East, Central Railways, Bilaspur, Civil Appeal No.5608 of 2017, decided on 25.04.2017, to the effect that where noinquiry as mandated by the Rules was conducted immediately afterthe incident had occurred, the claim would have to be allowed undersection 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

In the present case, the inquiry having been initiated after gapof 18 months and the report having been submitted two yearsthereafter, the same would be of no value. The DRM Inquiry Reportwas not proven either, by leading evidence. Hence it will be treatedas non-existent. Accordingly, in the absence of an inquiry report, theappeal is fit to be allowed.

It is noteworthy thatfor the quantum of compensation, theclaim would also need to be allowed in terms of the judgement of the

Supreme Court in Rathi Menon v. Union of India, 2000 (I) ACC453 (SC), which held that the rate of compensation as applicable onthe date the High Court adjudicates the appeal, would be awarded. Asper the extant rules i.e. Schedule to the Railways Accidents anduntoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016, thecompensation for loss of life in railway accident is Rs.8.00 lacs.

Accordingly, the claim is allowed. Rs.8.00 lacs shall be paid tothe appellants within four weeks from today with interest @ 8% perannum from the date of the filing of the claim petition before theRailway Claims Tribunal.

The appeal is allowed in the above terms.

FEBRUARY 05, 2018/acm

NAJMI WAZIRI, J