# Smt. Manju Yadav v. Union of India

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 360
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-22
- **Case number:** FAFO No. 296 of 2003
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-manju-yadav-v-union-of-india-47579
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Railway Act, 1989 - Sections 123 & 129 -
Claim
of
compensation
rejected-on
ground of suicide being committed by
the deceased-as journey ticket absentmere absence of journey ticket-will not
negate the claim of bonafide passengereye witness account and affidavit by
claimant-deceased
a
bonafide
passenger-no divine camera to indicate
the actual manner of fatality-inexorable
conclusion of untoward train accident
u/s 123 of Railways Act-compensation
in terms of section 129 of the Railway
Act, 1989. Amount enhanced.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

## Text

360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
hand it may strengthen public faith in the
Rule of Law.

8. Since in relation to the impugned
first information report, a final report has
been submitted as stated in the aforequoted paragraphs of the personal affidavit
of the Additional Chief Secretary (Home),
therefore, we do not find any good reason
to proceed further in the matter. Therefore,
the writ petition is disposed off with the
direction
that
the
Additional
Chief
Secretary (Home) shall take all necessary
steps to ensure that police authorities may
not act without authority of law and may
not interfere with the movement of goods
in the ordinary course of business except by
authority of law and the policy of the State
Government "Ease of Doing Business" is
implemented in letter and spirit. The
respondent No.1 and 4 shall ensure that the
departmental proceedings initiated against
the erring officers as stated in the
aforequoted paragraphs of the affidavit of
Additional Chief Secretary (Home), are
concluded in accordance with law within
THREE MONTHS.

9. Personal presence of all the aforenoted officers, is exempted.

10. With the aforesaid directions, the
writ petition is disposed off.
----------
(2021)09ILR A360
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

FAFO No. 296 of 2003

Smt. Manju Yadav ...Appellant
Versus
Union of India ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Pritish Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent:
Mahendra Kumar Misra

Railway Act, 1989 - Sections 123 & 129 -
Claim
of
compensation
rejected-on
ground of suicide being committed by
the deceased-as journey ticket absentmere absence of journey ticket-will not
negate the claim of bonafide passengereye witness account and affidavit by
claimant-deceased
a
bonafide
passenger-no divine camera to indicate
the actual manner of fatality-inexorable
conclusion of untoward train accident
u/s 123 of Railways Act-compensation
in terms of section 129 of the Railway
Act, 1989. Amount enhanced.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Shantanu Gupta,
learned counsel holding brief for Mr.
Pritish
Kumar,
learned
counsel
for
appellant and Mr. Mahendra Kumar
Mishra, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent.

2. First appeal from order has been
filed under Section XXIII of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act,1987 against the
judgment and award dated 16.12.2002
passed in Claim Case No.0A0100204 (Smt.
Manju Yadav Vs. Union of India) whereby
claim of appellant has been rejected on the
ground that death of predecessor-in-interest
of the claimants has occurred on account of
suicide having been committed by him and
is thus not liable for compensation in terms
of Section 124-A of the Railways Act
1989.
9 All. Smt. Manju Yadav Vs. Union of India
361

3. In the claim petition, it is averred
that the deceased had travelled from
Etawah to New Delhi by train no.4517
Unchahar Express on 06.10.2000, and as
per assertion of the claimants the deceased
was having second class general journey
ticket. It was claimed that when the train
was passing Jaswant Nagar Railway
Station, the deceased accidentally fell from
the compartment and sustained injuries
resulting in his instant death. It was
claimed that the journey ticket was lost
during course of incident. It was also
claimed that the entire incident has been
witnessed by an eye witness namely Netra
Pal Singh Yadav who was produced as
plaintiff
witness
to
substantiate
and
corroborate the claim petition.

4. The respondent-claimant had filed
written statement denying its liability
primarily on the ground that the deceased
was not a passenger in the aforesaid train
and since he was not a bona fide passenger,
the alleged accident does not come within
the ambit of an 'untoward incident' and
therefore the railways is not liable to
compensate under the exception provided
under Section 124-A of the Act.

5. The tribunal has framed four issues
which are as follows:-

"1. Whether applicants are only
dependents of the deceased Amod Yadav
within the meaning of Section 123(b) of the
Railways Act ?

2. Whether on 06.10.2000, the
deceased Amod Yadav was bonafide
passenger of the train no.4517, Unchahar
Express ?

3. Whether on 06.10.2000, death
of the deceased was caused due to an
untoward incident as defined in Section
123(c) of the Railways Act?

4. Relief & costs?"

6. With regard to issue no.1, the
tribunal has held in favour of the claimants
while issues no.2 and 3 were decided
conjointly in which the tribunal has held
against the claimants while recording a
finding that the deceased was not a bona
fide passenger and was not victim of the
incident of accidental falling from the train
due to which the railways was protected
under exception indicated in Section 124
(A) of the Act.

7. From material on record, it is
evident that the Panchnama being paper
no.11/1 to 11/4 and the post mortem report
being paper no.11/5 are on record which
relate to an unknown male person having
died due to decapitation on account of
falling down from the train. Since there is
no
dispute
about
claimants
being
dependents of deceased the following
points for determination are being framed:

(a) whether the deceased Amod
Yadav can be said to be a bona fide
passenger of the train no.4517 Unchahar
Express and died owing to an accident on
06.10.2000.

(b) whether the railways would
be liable to satisfy the claim of the claimant
in view of Sections 123 and 124A of the
Act.

8. The aforesaid issues being conjoint
are therefore being decided together.

9. Learned counsel for appellant has
submitted that the tribunal has erred in
failing to consider the testimony of eye
witness account of one Netra Pal Singh
Yadav who was co-passenger of the
deceased and had clearly established that
death of the deceased had occurred due to
362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
an accident in which he fell off the
passenger train. It is submitted that eye
witness account of the said witness has
been disbelieved on extraneous factors. It is
also submitted that the judgment and award
under challenge is not in consonance with
the evidence on record and judgment on the
said point. Learned counsel has also
submitted that the incident in which the
deceased passed away has been clearly and
conclusively proved by evidence on record
which has been unnecessarily disbelieved.

10. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent has refuted the
submission advanced by learned counsel
for appellant with the submission that the
tribunal has recorded a perfectly cogent
finding which is established by material on
record and by pertinent case laws on the
subject in which it has been clearly held
that in case of death occurring due to
decapitation of the deceased, there is no
occasion for an accident to have taken
place and it was therefore a clear case of
suicide for which the railway is not liable.
It is further submitted that the tribunal has
correctly recorded a finding that deposition
of the eye witness was not liable to be
believed in view of the circumstances of
the aforesaid accident.

11. Upon consideration of material on
record and submission of learned counsel
for parties it is admitted that no journey
ticket was produced in the proceedings by
the claimant to indicate or substantiate that
the deceased was a bona fide passenger in
the aforesaid train. However, it has been
submitted that in the muddle following the
incident, journey ticket of the deceased was
lost. From the deposition of Netra Pal
Singh Yadav, as plaintiff witness, it is
evident that the aforesaid witness has
introduced himself as eye witness of the
incident. In his examination in chief, the
aforesaid plaintiff witness has clearly stated
in paragraph 2 of the affidavit that he had
purchased journey ticket for the said train
along with deceased Amod Kumar. It has
also been stated that both persons thereafter
met the Traveling Ticket Examiner for
purposes of reservation, which was denied
where after the deceased had put his
railway ticket in his hand bag. The said
plaintiff witness has also stated that both
persons had thereafter travelled in the
general compartment in train and had sat
near the door since there was no
availability of seat in the compartment. It
has further been stated in his deposition
that just as the train passed Jaswant Nagar
Railway Station, at about 01.00 AM, there
was a sharp jerk in the train due to which
deceased Amod Kumar fell from train
along with his hand bag. It has been stated
that the deceased had fallen head first and
although the plaintiff witness along with
other co-passenger had raised hue and cry
but the train could not be stopped since
there was no such provision in the
compartment. It is stated that upon
happening of the incident, plaintiff witness
had informed brother of the deceased.

12. The aforesaid witness was crossexamined on 25.09.2002, which is on
record. However, it is a mere repetition of
the examination in chief with nothing being
elicited from plaintiff witness which was
contrary to the stand taken in the
examination in chief.

13. The aforesaid statement clearly
indicates the fact that the plaintiff witness
was an eye witness not only to the alleged
incident but also to the fact that deceased
had purchased
a
journey
ticket
for
travelling in general compartment of the
train in question. However, it is admitted
9 All. Smt. Manju Yadav Vs. Union of India
363
that no such journey ticket was found upon
person of deceased.

14. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the
case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi
reported in AIR 2018 Supreme Court 2362
has considered regarding burden of proof
upon a body found on railway premises
without journey ticket and definition of
passenger; it has been elucidated in
paragraph 17.4 which is as follows:-

"17.4 We thus hold that mere
presence of a body on the Railway premises
will not be conclusive to hold that injured
or deceased was a bona fide passenger for
which claim for compensation could be
maintained. However, mere absence of
ticket with such injured or deceased will
not negative the claim that he was a bona
fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the
claimant which can be discharged by filing
an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden
will then shift on the Railways and the issue
can be decided on the facts shown or the
attending circumstances. This will have to
be dealt with from case to case on the basis
of facts found. The legal position in this
regard will stand explained accordingly."

15. The aforesaid judgment is squarely
covering the issue whereunder it has been
held that mere absence of ticket with such
injured or deceased will not negative the
claim that he was a bona fide passenger.
Initial burden will be on the claimant to prove
this such fact which can be discharged by
filing an affidavit of the relevant fact
whereafter the burden would shift to the
railways and issue can be decided on the facts
shown on attending circumstances. Upon
applicability of the said judgment in present
case, it is apparent that initial burden has been
discharged by the claimant upon production
not only of affidavit but also the eye witness
who has squarely deposed that deceased had
purchased a journey ticket along with the eye
witness for journey upon the train in question.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the
initial burden as such has been discharged by
the claimant but the same could not be
refuted by the railways upon production of
any documentary or oral evidence. In view of
aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme
Court as applicable upon the facts and
circumstances of the case, it is held that the
deceased Amod Yadav was clearly a bona
fide passenger in the train in question.

16. With regard to establishment of the
alleged accident, the same has also been
corroborated and established by the eye
witness account of Netra Pal Singh Yadav
who was produced as plaintiff witness. From
deposition of the said plaintiff witness, it is
evident that examination in chief and the
cross examination are virtually the same with
nothing contradictory elicited from the said
witness by the railway. However, deposition
of the said eye witness has been disbelieved
by the tribunal on the ground that it is not in
consonance with circumstances of the case.

17. Once it is seen that there is an eye
witness account with regard to accident in
question and nothing contradictory could
be
elicited
by
railways
in
cross
examination, it is to be seen as to whether
discarding of eye witness account by the
tribunal was sustainable or not. With regard
to the said proposition, Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and
Others reported in (2008)9 SCC 527 has
held as follows:

"6. Before the Tribunal PW 2, K.
Rajan, deposed that while he was at
Varkala Railway Station he found one
passenger falling from the Parasuram
364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Express and that the train had stopped. He
further stated in his evidence that he went
to the north side of the platform and saw
the injured lying on the platform. He
further stated that the person falling down
was the lady who died on the spot. He also
stated that the deceased fell down from the
compartment of the train when the train
was moving.

7. The Tribunal strangely enough
held that PW 2 was an interested witness
because if he was present on the spot he
would have definitely helped the Station
Master in removing the dead body from the
railway track. Further, the police would
have definitely recorded his evidence. For
this reason, the Tribunal disbelieved the
evidence of PW 2. We are, however, of the
opinion that there was no good reason to
disbelieve PW 2 because there is nothing to
show that he had any motive to give false
evidence, or that he was an interested
witness. Further, his evidence could not
have been discarded merely because he did
not go to the spot and help in removing the
dead body
from
the
railway
track.
Moreover, merely because the police did
not record his statement does not mean that
he was not present or gave false evidence.
It is common knowledge that in our country
often there is a large crowd on railway
platforms, and it is simply not possible for
the police to take the statements of
everyone there."

18. Upon applicability of the aforesaid
judgement in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, it is seen that eye witness
account has been disbelieved by the tribunal
only on account of the fact that the eye
witness did not disembark from the train
despite dis-balanced accidental falling of cotraveller. The tribunal could not believe that
the eye witness thereafter undertook his entire
journey upto New Delhi and did not break the
same on the next stoppage of the train. On the
said basis, the tribunal has recorded a
conclusion that the eye witness had not
travelled by the train in question and his
deposition was not reliable. The tribunal has
also disbelieved eye witness account on the
basis of the Panchnama in which it is
indicated that the body was lying about 300
yards away towards West of the Railway
Station on railway track and neck and head of
the deceased were found separated from the
body. The tribunal has further recorded a
finding that eye witness account was liable to
be disbelieved since the position of the body
was not in consonance with the running
direction of the train. On that basis, the
tribunal has recorded a finding that death had
occurred due to injuries inflicted not on
account of accidental falling of deceased
from the train but as a result of suicide
committed by him.

19. With regard to the aforesaid
finding of the tribunal, it is apparent that
while disbelieving the version of eye
witness, explanation for the said factor as
indicated in his deposition has been ignored
by the tribunal. The said plaintiff witness
not only in his examination-in-chief but
also in his cross-examination has clearly
indicated that upon the accident taking
place, witness had not disembarked since
the area in which they were passing was
not a safe area. The witness has further
stated that upon the incident happening, he
alongwith other co-passengers had raised
hue and cry but since there was no
provision for stopping the train in the
compartment nothing further could be
done. The said fact has been indicated by
the witness in his cross examination. In
view of the specific statements of the eye
witness, there was no occasion for the
tribunal to reject the claim only on the basis
of assumption and surmises.
9 All. Smt. Manju Yadav Vs. Union of India
365

20. The case of Prabhakaran (supra)
has clearly indicated the conditions under
which an eye witness account can be
disbelieved. None of the conditions indicated
in the aforesaid judgment are applicable in
the present case particularly since no finding
had been recorded by the Tribunal that the
eye witness produced as plaintiff witness had
any motive to give false evidence or that he
was an interested witness. The mere fact that
he did not go to the spot or did not get off
from the train on the next station would not
automatically lead to a conclusion that he was
not present or had given false statement. In
view of aforesaid, it is apparent that the
tribunal has clearly fell in error in discarding
the eye witness testimony of said Netra Pal
Singh Yadav.

21. The tribunal has thereafter recorded
a finding with regard to the accident having
taken place as a result of suicide. Regarding
the said finding, the tribunal has indicated
position of the body which was in a NorthSouth direction whereas railway track in
question runs from East to West. The tribunal
has also noticed that except for the
decapitation, there was no other injury found
on the body of the deceased and as such has
concluded that the nature of injury and
position of the body indicated that death was
not caused due to accidental falling of the
deceased but as a result of suicide.

22. The tribunal has found the aforesaid
finding to be corroborated by the Panchnama.
The tribunal has also found that in case of a
person accidentally falling from the train,
there is no occasion for the body to be cut
into two pieces and at best death can occur on
account serious injury on the body of the
person.

23. With regard to the aforesaid
finding recorded by the tribunal, it is
apparent that the position of the body was
not in consonance with running track of the
train.

24. With regard to the aforesaid facts,
the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case
of Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai vs. State
of Gujarat reported in AIR 1983 Supreme
Court 484 has held as follows:

"12. Ordinarily, the value of
medical evidence is only corroborative. It
proves that the injuries could have been
caused in the manner alleged and nothing
more. The use which the defence can make
of the medical evidence is to prove that the
injuries could not possibly have been
caused in the manner alleged and thereby
discredit
the
eye
witnesses.
Unless,
however the medical evidence in its turn
goes so far that it completely rules out all
possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking
place in the manner alleged by eye
witnesses, the testimony of the
eye
witnesses cannot be thrown out on the
ground of alleged inconsistency between it
and the medical evidence."

25. The aforesaid judgment clearly
indicates that medical evidence is only
corroborative and proves that injuries could
have been caused in the manner alleged and
nothing more. The use of medical evidence
can only be to prove that the injuries could
not possibly have been caused in the
manner alleged and thereby discredit eye
witness. However the testimony of the eye
witness cannot be thrown out on the ground
of alleged inconsistency between it and the
medical evidence.

26. Regarding finding of Tribunal that
severing of body into two parts indicates
suicide and not death by falling from train
the High Court of Delhi in the case of SH.
366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Prempal Singh & Another vs. Union of
India in F.A.O.No. 211 of 2014 has in its
judgment and order dated 24.04.2018 held
as follows:

"7. The reasoning in the impugned
order that because the deceased was cut into
halves: one part found inside the railway
tracks and the other outside, the death could
not have been caused due to accidental
falling from a moving train, is flawed. The
impossibility of a passenger being so crushed
after a fall from a moving train has not been
conclusively established in law, so as to
obviate all such claims for compensation. It is
possible that thedeceased while standing near
the overcrowded passenger compartment
door, slipped down while holding on to the
door- railing, and frantically tried to recover
and re-board the train - with his legs flailing
violently, and in the valiant and violent melee
his legs or his body could have unfortunately
come under the wheels of the train leading to
his being consumed in the fatal accident. As
long as such possibility exists, the claim
cannot be ousted or denied on technical
assumptions. There is not a divine camera
which could replay the actual manner of the
fatality, but all factors lead to the inexorable
conclusion that a bonafide passenger died in
an untoward train accident. There is also no
reason why the deceased would be walking
the railway tracks in an odd place en-route
his destination - his home. It is not that he
lived near the site of the accident or that he
had any regular business anywhere near the
place of the accident. Thus the inference that
he died while crossing the tracks, is
unwarranted and untenable."

27. The same observations have been
made by the Delhi High Court in the case
of Smt. Ram Payari vs. Union of India in
FAO No.142 of 2012 vide judgment and
order dated 31.03.2014 in which also the
same reasoning has been followed.

28. The same reasoning has also been
indicated by High Court at Calcutta in the
case of Suchitra As (Ash) vs. Union of
India in F.M.A. 384 of 2015 vide judgment
and order dated 11.04.2019. The Division
Bench at Calcutta High Court has held as
follows:

"Whether a person would commit
suicide by laying or putting his body before
a moving train, or causing a person's body
to put in front of a moving train', while
crossing the track carelessly could be
conveniently ascertained from the facts and
circumstances involved in a particular case
together with the attending circumstances, if
therebe any. The intention behind of the
deceased is of paramount consideration,
which has to be gathered from the facts and
circumstances together with the attending
circumstances of a particular case. It is a
case, where the deceased victim had no
mental
depression
conducive
for
commission of suicide. The victim even had
purchased monthly ticket with effect from
1.4.04. The deceased suffered death in
course of his return journey. The place of
occurrence where the dead body of the
deceased was found to exist was intervened
by distance of 20 minutes walk from the
locality, where the deceased had his own
house. PW-2 is not a person having his
blood relation with the deceased victim. The
facts and circumstances, as gathered here
together with the attending circumstances
discussed
herein
above,
would
not
demonstrate
the
requisite
intention
necessary
to
reveal
the
attending
circumstances, supportive of commission of
suicide, far to speak off a case based on run
over, caused purposefully and carelessly."
9 All. Smt. Manju Yadav Vs. Union of India
367

29. On the contrary, with regard to the
aforesaid proposition that in case of
decapitation of body, it cannot be said that
a person has died due to falling from a
train, learned counsel for respondent has
relied upon the Division Bench Judgment
of this Court in the case of Tara Chand
Mathur vs. Union of India in First Appeal
From Order Defective No.763 of 2011 in
which following another judgment it has
been held that in case the body of deceased
was cut into two pieces, we cannot draw
inference that the accident has occurred as
a result of falling down of the deceased
from the train.

30. Upon applicability of the
aforesaid judgment, it is apparent that the
Division Bench has clearly held that the
fact whether the person has died due to
accident occurred as a result of falling
down from the train or has committed
suicide is to be seen from the prevailing
factors which in that case was that the
deceased had failed in examination, the
result of which had been declared on the
same day due to which he was under
depression and jumped before the train. It
is quite evident that facts of the said case
are completely different from the present
case since no such depression has been
indicated pertaining to the deceased.

31. Learned counsel has also relied
upon another Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Smt. Meena & Another vs.
Union of India (First Appeal From Order
No.229 of 2018) decided vide judgment
and order dated 09.04.2018. In the said
judgment, the Division Bench has not
found any error with the finding recorded
by the trial court that it is not possible that
passenger would fall off the train and his
body would be found lying in the centre of
the tracks that too without extensive
injuries
and
lacerated
marks.
The
aforesaid judgment also in the considered
opinion of this Court is not applicable in
the present situation where although the
body was found lying on the tracks
without extensive injuries and without any
laceration marks with the body cut into
two pieces but the witness in that case was
held to be chance witness without any
explanation about his presence since he
was
not
travelling
in
the
train.
Furthermore, 9 trains has passed without
any major injury or further amputation of
body.

32. As has been held in the judgment
indicated herein above by the Delhi High
Court and Calcutta, the Division Benches
of this Court have not recorded any
specific finding or have laid down a
specific law that death cannot be caused
by decapitation of a person upon falling
from train. The fact that death cannot be
caused upon falling from a train once body
has been cut into two parts has not been
conclusively established either in law or
on expert medical opinion. Such a finding
has been recorded only on the basis of an
assumption that it is not probable for the
body to be cut into two parts upon falling
from train. However this Court is in
respectful agreement with the judgment
rendered by the High Court of Delhi and
Calcutta to the effect that no such hard and
fast Rule can be established without any
pertinent medical advise or opinion.

33. The circumstances indicated in the
judgment of Prempal Singh & Another
(supra) are quite probable that there is no
divine camera which can indicate the actual
manner of the fatality but that all factors
lead to an inexorable conclusion that a bona
fide passenger has died in an untoward
train accident.
368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

34. Learned counsel has also relied
upon the Division Bench judgment of this
Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Singh
Maurya vs. Union of India in F.A.F.O.
No.1023 of 2010, the Single Judge
Judgment in the case of Smt. Sumitra
Mishra and Others vs. Union of India in
F.A.F.O No.583 of 2013 and the judgment
of High Court of Delhi in the case of Smt.
Dharambiri Devi & Others vs. The
Ministry
of
Railway
and
Another
promoted No.149(2008)DLT 434.

35.

However
in
the
aforesaid
judgments, no hard and fast rule has been
stated that a dead body which is cut into two
parts and is found in the middle of the track
cannot be occasioned upon falling from a
train. The findings recorded in the said case
laws are merely on the basis of probability
rather on the hard and fast medical advice or
any law on that point. As indicated herein
above, upon applicability of the reasoning
indicated in judgments rendered by the High
Courts of Delhi and Calcutta, the same is
merely an assumption which has to be
corroborated from the facts and surrounding
circumstances of each and every case. As
such, in the view of this Court, the aforesaid
factor cannot be a relevant factor for
discarding an eye witness account.

36. The judgments cited by the
learned counsel for respondent would have
applicability probably in a case where there
is no eye witness account and there is no
corroborative evidence with regard to death
having occurred as untoward incident due
to falling of a passenger. However in the
present case, there is a clear eye witness
account
not
only
corroborating
but
substantiating the incident as claimed in the
claim petition. No cogent reason has been
indicated in the impugned award for
discarding the eye witness account.

37. It is also a relevant factor upon
reading of the Panchnama that none of the
signatories to the Panchanama recognized
the dead body. Even if theory of suicide as
set up by the railways is to be believed,
naturally the deceased should have been a
person living in the vicinity of the accident.
It is improbable that a person living in
Etawah, would travel all the way to
Jaswant Nagar to commit suicide on the
railway tracks which could have done in his
place of residence itself. Even if theory of
suicide is to be believed with the natural
consequence of deceased belonging to
vicinity of the accident, it would have been
but natural for the signatories to the
Panchnama to have recognized the dead
body. The failure of local persons to
recognize the deceased itself indicates that
the deceased was not a native and therefore
it could not have been a case of suicide.
The said aspect of the matter has been
completely lost sight of by the tribunal
although details of Panchnama have been
indicated in the impugned award.

38. As as a result of the aforesaid
discussion, it is held that the deceased a
was bona fide passenger and his death had
occasioned due to an accident which can be
termed as an 'untoward incident' as defined
under Section 123 of the Act and would
therefore not be covered by the proviso of
Section 124 (A) of the aforesaid Act of
1989.

39. In view of the fact that the
deceased has been found to be a bona fide
passenger and that his death had occurred
due to an untoward incident, compensation
for the same is to be decided in terms of
the Railway Accident (Compensation)
Rules, 1990 which has been notified in
terms of Section 129 of the Railway Act
1989.
9 All. Smt. Manju Yadav Vs. Union of India
369

40. The parties are in agreement on
the point that the alleged incident has taken
place on 06.10.2000 while the impugned
judgment and award has been rendered on
16.12.2002.
The
Railway
Accident
(Compensation) Rules, 1990 have been
amended with effect from 01.11.1997
whereby the amount of compensation under
Rule 3 has been enhanced to Rs. 4,00,000/-
including of death under part I. It has been
submitted by learned counsel for parties
that prior to amendment, the amount of
compensation
as
indicated
was
Rs.2,00,000/- and subsequently the rules
were amended in 2017 as has been noticed
in the case of Smt. Rina Devi (supra)
whereunder, it has been held that awarding
of compensation in terms of Section 124-A
is based on no fault theory and as such
negligence on the part of any person or
principles
of
contributory
negligence
cannot be invoked particularly when fixed
compensation has been provided in the
Rules of 1990.

41. In the present case since accident
has taken place on 06.10.2000, the
amendment notified on 25.10.1997 with
effect from 01.11.1997 would came into
effect whereunder a fixed amount of
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- has been
indicated in Part I of the Schedule to Rule
3. As such, it is held that the claimant
would
be
entitled
to
amount
of
Rs.4,00,000/-. With regard to the rate of
interest, it has already been held in the case
of Smt.Rina Devi (supra) that the rate of
interest should be 6% per annum from the
date of application till the date of award
and 9% thereafter in case the payment is
not made within specified time period.

42. Applying the aforesaid dictum of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court it is held that
the claimants would be entitled to interest
@ 6% simple interest per annum from the
date of claim till the date of award and @
9% thereafter till the date of actual
payment.

43. At this stage learned counsel for
respondent submits that in view of the
statutory
provision,
the
principal
compensation with interest cannot exceed
the sum of Rs.8,00,000/-.

44. The aforesaid aspect of the matter
has already been considered by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India vs. Radha Yadav reported in (2019)
3 Supreme Court Cases 410 in the
following manner:

"11. The issue raised in the matter
does not really require any elaboration as in
our view, the judgment of this Court in Rina
Devi [Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3
SCC 572] is very clear. What this Court has
laid down is that the amount of compensation
payable on the date of accident with
reasonable rate of interest shall first be
calculated. If the amount so calculated is less
than the amount prescribed as on the date of
the award, the claimant would be entitled to
higher of these two amounts. Therefore, if the
liability had arisen before the amendment
was brought in, the basic figure would be as
per the Schedule as was in existence before
the amendment and on such basic figure
reasonable rate of interest would be
calculated. If there be any difference between
the amount so calculated and the amount
prescribed in the Schedule as on the date of
the award, the higher of two figures would be
the measure of compensation. For instance,
in case of a death in an accident which
occurred before amendment, the basic figure
would be Rs 4,00,000. If, after applying
reasonable rate of interest, the final figure
were to be less than Rs 8,00,000, which was
370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
brought in by way of amendment, the
claimant
would
be
entitled
to
Rs
8,00,000. If, however, the amount of
original
compensation
with
rate
of
interest were to exceed the sum of Rs
8,00,000 the compensation would be in
terms of figure in excess of Rs 8,00,000.
The idea is to afford the benefit of the
amendment, to the extent possible. Thus,
according to us, the matter is crystal
clear. The issue does not need any further
clarification or elaboration."

45. In view of aforesaid judgment,
the submission of learned counsel for
respondent does not have any merit.

46. In terms of aforesaid, judgment
and award dated 16.12.2002 passed by
Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow in
Claim Case No.0A0100204 (Smt. Manju
Yadav & others Vs. Union of India) is set
aside. Consequently, the appeal succeeds
and is allowed. Parties shall bear their
own costs. Office is directed to remit the
lower court record to the tribunal.
----------
(2021)09ILR A370
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.07.2021 &
03.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHAND, J.

FAFO Defective No. 355 of 2018

Smt. Chandrakala & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Imtiyaz & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Anubhav Sinha
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, Sri Brijesh Chandra
Naik

Motor
accident
claim
-compensation
challenged-deceased
was
not
a
permanent
employee-Tribunal
did
not
grant any amount under the head of
future loss of income-income proved to be
Rs.8000/- per month but thentoo Tribunal
considered
it
4500/-
per
montherroneous-income is fixed as Rs 8000/-
per month and Rs 1000 is deductible as
other allowance-job permanent of privatefuture aspect has to be added-order
modified.

Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Vidyawati
Devi & 2 ors. decided on 27.07.2016 in First
Appeal From Order No. 2389 of 2016

2. First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of 2012 (
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Smt.
Renu Singh & ors.)

3. Archit Saini Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. &
ors. 2018 0 AIR (SC) 1143

4. Rajendra Singh Vs National Insurance Co.
(2020) 7 SCC 256

5.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sarita Rani
Dhaka & ors. ACJ 895,

6. Ranu Bala Paul Vs Bani Chakraborty & ors.
1999 (1) TAC 151,

7.N.K.Vs Brothers (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs M. Karumai
Ammal & ors. AIR 1980 SC 1354,

8. Usha Rajkhowa & ors. Vs Paramount
Industries & anr. 2 (2009) ACC 281 (SC)

9. St. of Har. & ors. Vs Jasveer Kaur & ors.,
2003 (3) TAC 569 (SC)

10. Smt. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs Delhi Transport
Corporation & ors. 2009 ACJ 1298