# Union of India Defendant/ v. Smt. Vidyawati & others

- **Citation:** (2008) 1 ILRA 243
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-01-29
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 275 of 2008
- **Bench:** Amitava Lala, Shishir Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/union-of-india-defendant-v-smt-vidyawati-others-41023
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Act
1989-
Section
124-Auntoward
incident-Compensationdeceased traveling having valid ticketunreserved compartment-due to heavy
rush fell down-expired due to serious
injury-held-railway
cannot
shirk
its
responsibility-claimant
entitled
for
compensation.

Held: Para 4

According to us, the appellant has
proceeded with a misconception of law.
The deceased was a bonafide passenger.
In spite of having valid ticket when a
passenger fall down from the railway
due to an untoward incident, he is
entitled for compensation. There is gulf
difference between untoward incident
and self inflicted untoward incident.
Without any specific proof an untoward
incident cannot be said as self inflicted.

## Text

1 All] Union of India V. Smt. Vidyawati and others
243
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan can be
treated
a
qualification
for
the
candidates who do not possess the
qualification of B.A. with sanskrit?

Reference made to larger bench.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 275 of 2008

Union of India ...Defendant/Appellant
Versus
Smt. Vidyawati & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Govind Saran

Counsel for the Respondents:

Railways
Act
1989-
Section
124-Auntoward
incident-Compensationdeceased traveling having valid ticketunreserved compartment-due to heavy
rush fell down-expired due to serious
injury-held-railway
cannot
shirk
its
responsibility-claimant
entitled
for
compensation.

Held: Para 4

According to us, the appellant has
proceeded with a misconception of law.
The deceased was a bonafide passenger.
In spite of having valid ticket when a
passenger fall down from the railway
due to an untoward incident, he is
entitled for compensation. There is gulf
difference between untoward incident
and self inflicted untoward incident.
Without any specific proof an untoward
incident cannot be said as self inflicted.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amitava Lala, J.)

1. This appeal is arising out of an
order of the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Gorakhpur Bench, dated 12th October,
2007. By the order impugned the Tribunal
allowed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to
the claimants on account of death of the
deceased. The deceased was a police
personnel, who was traveling by train
having valid ticket. The Tribunal gave the
following finding in coming to the
conclusion:-

6.1 Original ticket for journey has
been filed. It is for the correct stations
and date as per application. Ticket was
found from the person of the deceased.
Although, respondent stated that its
genuineness was to be proved by
applicant, tribunal cannot accept this
plea. Original ticket was filed on
15.5.2004 and respondent could very well
have checked it up to 12.6.07 most
diligently. In absence of any specific
defence by respondent, the deceased is
held to be a bonafide passenger at the
time of untoward incident.

6.2 Deceased fell down from train
due to pushing by other passengers who
were in large number. Possibly, he could
not get a seat to sit and had to stand.
Although uncomfortable, such journey is
undertaken by quite a significant number
of passengers overlooking their comfort
and
convenience.
Even
fall
from
footboard at the entrance of coach is an
accidental fall because footboard is part
of coach. Second issue is allowed i.e.
accident in this application was an
untoward incident as per Railway Rules
for compensation."
244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
2. The appellant contended before
this Court that this is a first appeal lies, to
the High Court under Section 123 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
However, we are not concerned about the
maintainability when such law available
but with the feasibility of admission on
merit. Section 124-A of the Railways Act,
1989 speaks as follows:-

124-A. Compensation on account of
untoward incidents -

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 dependent relative of a
passenger who has been killed to
maintain an action and recover damages
in
respect
thereof,
the
railway
administration such as would entitle a
passenger who has been injured or the
dependant 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 for 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-inflicted injury;
(c )his own criminal act;
(d) any act committed 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."

The
learned
counsel
contended
before
this
Court
that
'untoward
incident' means as follows:-

Section
123
(c)"untoward
incident"
means-
(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act
within the meaning of subsection (1) of
section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of
1987); or

(ii) the making of a violent attack or the
commission of robbery or dacoity; or

(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or
arson, by any person in or on any train
carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall,
cloak room or reservation or booking
office or on any platform or in any other
place within the precincts of a railway
station; or

(2)
the
accidental
falling
of
any
passenger
from
a
train
carrying
passengers."

3. According to the learned counsel
appearing
for
the
appellant
since
untoward incident includes "the accidental
falling of any passenger from a train
carrying passengers," it can be construed
as self-inflicted injury as per proviso to
Section 124-A of the Act for which the
claimants are not entitled to claim any
compensation. He also said standing on
the foot board is a punishable offence by
virtue of Section 154 of the Act.
1 All] Bal Krishna Varshney V. The Dy. Director of Education, Agra and others
245
4. According to us, the appellant has
proceeded with a misconception of law.
The deceased was a bonafide passenger.
In spite of having valid ticket when a
passenger fall down from the railway due
to an untoward incident, he is entitled for
compensation. There is gulf difference
between untoward incident and self
inflicted untoward incident. Without any
specific proof an untoward incident
cannot be said as self inflicted.

5. The learned counsel stated that
there is a difference between reserved
compartments
and
unreserved
compartments.
Facilities
of
reserved
compartment cannot be given to the
passengers of unreserved compartments.
We
are
of
view
that
a
reserved
compartments means the seats of the valid
ticket holders are reserved, but unreserved
compartment means seat are unreserved,
who will come first he will occupy. In
case
of
unreserved
compartments
Railways are issuing tickets irrespective
of accommodations in case of unreserved
seats. Even at the time of return of tickets
without journey, certain amounts are
being
deducted
by
the
Railways.
Therefore, Railways are duty bound to
discharge the responsibilities. In such
situation it does not lie on the mouth of
the
Railways
that
as
because
the
unreserved compartment was overloaded
and the passenger, who was standing on
the foot board, sustained death, it can be
construed as self inflicted incident. This
submission cannot lie on the mouth of a
public authority of a developed country.
This is also a disgraceful submission that
the deceased could have board on the next
train.
Therefore,
the
balance
of
convenience
does
not
support
the
contentions of the cause. Hence, we
cannot admit the appeal. The appeal is,
accordingly, dismissed without imposing
any costs.

 Appeal dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.01.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17404 of 1998

Bal Krishna Varshney
...Petitioner
Versus
The Dy. Director of Education (Madhyamik),
Agra and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.R. Singh
Sri V.K. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri M.K. Gupta
S.C.

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921Section 16-G Regulation 36 and37termination
of
Head
Clerk
of
Intermediate
collage-without
prior
approval without giving charge-sheetwithout affording opportunity to submit
reply-Held-mandatory
provision
of
regulation 36,37 not complied withtermination order quashed.

Held: Para 19

In the present case, from the record it is
clear that no enquiry was held, no
evidence was recorded and no report of
enquiry officer was considered by the
Committee of Management after notice
to the petitioner. Even if petitioner has
failed to submit his explanation in time it
was incumbent on the Committee of
Management to act in accordance with
Regulation 37 by giving him notice and
opportunity
to
appear
before
the
Committee on the day the matter was
finally considered. The Committee of