# Union of India v. Makrand Kumar Rawat and another

- **Citation:** (2010) 2 ILRA 534
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-05-07
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 72 of 2004
- **Bench:** Devi Prasad Singh, Dr. Satish Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/union-of-india-v-makrand-kumar-rawat-and-another-41623
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Railways Claims Act, 1927, Section-23Appeal against award by Railway claim
Tribunal-on ground contributory negligence
of
deceased
itself-finding
regarding
bonafide
passenger-confirmed-in
case
passenger fell down because of jerkpassenger can not be blamed-held-award
does not suffer from any impropriety or
illegality warrant, no interference.

Held: Para 9

In a over-populated country, in case the
Government or the railway fails to provide
sufficient number of trains and regulate the
entry in the compartment and a person
enters
into
the
compartment
after
purchasing a ticket, he shall be bona fide
passenger and in case he fell down from the
train because of jerk, then for such
accident, the passenger may not be blamed.
Case Law discussed:
2009(27) LDC 240

## Text

534 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.05.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. SATISH CHANDRA, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 72 of 2004

Union of India

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Makrand Kumar Rawat and another

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anil Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Rajendra Jaisawal

Railways Claims Act, 1927, Section-23Appeal against award by Railway claim
Tribunal-on ground contributory negligence
of
deceased
itself-finding
regarding
bonafide
passenger-confirmed-in
case
passenger fell down because of jerkpassenger can not be blamed-held-award
does not suffer from any impropriety or
illegality warrant, no interference.

Held: Para 9

In a over-populated country, in case the
Government or the railway fails to provide
sufficient number of trains and regulate the
entry in the compartment and a person
enters
into
the
compartment
after
purchasing a ticket, he shall be bona fide
passenger and in case he fell down from the
train because of jerk, then for such
accident, the passenger may not be blamed.
Case Law discussed:
2009(27) LDC 240

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Anil Srivastava,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
appellant and Mr. Rajendra Jaisway,
learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present appeal under Section 23
of the Railway Claims Act, 1927 (in
short, Act) has been preferred against the
impugned award dated 3.12.2003, passed
by
the
Railway
Claims
Tribunal,
Lucknow in Case No.-O.A. - 0000002.

3. Brief facts, giving rise to the
instant First Appeal from Order relate to
the accident occurred on 6.11.1999. The
deceased Anand Kumar Rawat was
travelling by Lucknow Gonda passenger
train on 6.11.1999 and accidentally, he
fell down from train at a place between
Jhangirabad Raj and Raffi Nagar railway
station. He succumbed to the injuries at
the spot. The tribunal framed four issues,
out of which, the first issue relates to as to
whether the deceased was bona fide
passenger, second relates to cause of
death, the third relates to dependency and
the fourth relates to what relief can be
granted.

4. The tribunal recorded a finding
that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger and he was having ticket. On
account of sudden jerk, he fell down from
the
train.
The
tribunal
awarded
compensation
of
Rs.4
lacs
to
the
claimants treating the deceased as bona
fide passenger and the accident caused
because of sudden jerk. The deceased was
standing at the door of the compartment
because of over-crowded by passengers
and fell down due to sudden jer1.25"k.

5. While assailing the award, in
question, solitary argument advanced by
the appellant's counsel is that the deceased
was standing on the door of the moving
train and by both the hands, he was
2 All] Union of India V. Makrand Kumar Rawat and another
535
holding only one iron bar of the door.
Hence, he put himself in danger as he
could not balance himself while moving
with the train. Hence his action was
violative of Section 154 of the Act.

6. However, the appellant's counsel
has not invited the attention of this Court
to any evidence on record to indicate as to
whether there was some alternative space
for the deceased in the moving training to
accommodate him comfortably. In the
over-crowded train, in case a person after
purchasing ticket does not find sufficient
space for comfortable journey, then under
compulsion, he may catch hold of the iron
rod put on one side of the door and during
this, if he falls down due to jerk, he
cannot be blamed for such action.

7. Under Section 154 of the Act, it
shall be necessary for the railways to
establish that the person has put himself
in danger even if there was sufficient
accommodation in the train. In case there
is no space to accommodate a passenger
in a compartment and the person caught
hold only one side of the iron bar, then in
such situation, he cannot be blamed for
such action, unless otherwise it is proved
that he has done so in spite of availability
of sufficient space in the compartment
concerned. In the over-crowded train, a
person after purchasing a ticket wants to
complete the journey by boarding the
train concerned to reach the destination. It
is for the railway to make necessary
arrangement and regulate the entry in the
compartment adopting appropriate ways
and means. The passengers cannot be
faulted for travelling by standing near
door.

8. While deciding identical issue
with regard to negligence on the part of
the passenger, in a case reported in
2009(27)LCD 240 Smt. Akhtari versus
Union of India and others, a Division
Bench of this Court, of which one of
us(Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh, J) was a
member, considered this aspect of the
matter.

9. In a over-populated country, in
case the Government or the railway fails
to provide sufficient number of trains and
regulate the entry in the compartment and
a person enters into the compartment after
purchasing a ticket, he shall be bona fide
passenger and in case he fell down from
the train because of jerk, then for such
accident, the passenger may not be
blamed.

10. Time has come when the railway
has to think over and make necessary
arrangement as observed in the case of
Smt. Akhtari (supra) so that once a train
leaves the platform, the doors are closed
either mechanically or manually.

11. It has been vehemently argued
by the appellant's counsel that to obtain
compensation
under
the
Act,
the
provisions
have
been
abused
by
undeserving persons. In case it is so, then
it is for the government or the railways to
take appropriate steps to persecute the
culprit. Only because the procedure
prescribed by law has been abused by
certain
anti-social
elements
or
undeserving persons, it does not mean
that the courts should not discharge its
constitutional obligation to meet out
justice.
We
have
to
secure
the
fundamental and statutory right of the
citizens within the constitutional ambit.
Only because some hardship has been
caused to the railway or the government,
536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
the court cannot close its doors in
discharge of its constitutional obligations.

12. It is not uncommon in this
country where statutory provisions are
abused but it is not because the courts are
not discharging their obligations properly
but it is because of the failure on the part
of the administration. They have to punish
such persons who are indulged in antisocial activities. The law has given ample
power to meet out such contingencies and
it is the duty of the bureaucracy to give
its effect and check the abuse of the
statutory provisions. They cannot shift
their burden on others.

13. In view of above, we do not find
any reason to interfere with the impugned
award which does not seem to suffer from
any impropriety or illegality. The appeal
is devoid of merit. It is accordingly
dismissed.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.05.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N.H. ZAIDI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 113 of 2010

Naththan Lal and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mohammad Naseerullah

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-Criminal
Revision-against order of remand by
Appellant court-on ground no sufficient
compliance of mandatory provision of
Section 313 Cr.P.C.-held-if the Trial
Court fails to properly comply
the
statutory provision-Appellate court acted
well within power-can not be interfered
under revisional justification.

Held: Para 10

The benefit of the above observation of
the Apex Court can not be extended to
the revisionists because, firstly, the ratio
of the case is that non compliance of
section 313 Cr.P.C. can be objected only
by
the
accused
and
not
by
the
complainant, and secondly, in this case it
is the accused revisionists who are
complaining
about
the
improper
compliance of section 313 Cr.P.C. and
not the complainant. Moreover, under
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section
313 Cr.P.C., it is mandatory for the Court
in every inquiry or trial to put questions
to the accused to enable him personally
to explain any circumstance that has
appeared in the evidence against him
after the prosecution witnesses are
examined and before the accused is
called on for his defence, and if the Court
fails
to
properly
comply
with
this
statutory
requirement,
the
appellate
court is well within its powers to remand
the case to the trial court for proper
compliance of its statutory duty in order
to secure the ends of justice.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1962 SC 1239, 2008(62) ACC 669,
2000(41) ACC 1013.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N.H. Zaidi, J.)

1. This revision has been directed
against the common judgment and order
dated 10.2.2010 passed by the Special
Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in
Criminal Appeal Nos. 26 of 1998 and 28
of 1998, whereby the appeals were
allowed and the judgment and order dated
16.9.1998
of
the
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Pratapgarh,
passed
in
Criminal Case No. 1558 of 1993 Brahm