In an appeal filed before the Jharkhand High Court under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against a judgment and award dated 12-06-2024 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench (Tribunal) whereby the appellants’ claim had been dismissed, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held that the appellants were entitled for a compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-.
The appellants submitted that earlier their claim was dismissed by an order dated 13-10-2015 by the Tribunal, which was challenged before this Court. The award was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for adjudicating the case within a stipulated period. It was submitted that the appellants had preferred an application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act with Rule 5 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989, and that their claim had been dismissed again by the impugned award.
On 26-01-2014, the deceased person was passing a railway crossing in a car when a train suddenly, without blowing whistle, dashed the said car and the deceased was crushed to death. It was submitted that there was no rail man to close the gate nor any signal man to control the persons crossing the railway line, which was apparent from the photographs on record. The ruling of the Tribunal was that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger on the date of accident and that the claim was not within the definition of Section 123(a) read with Section 124 and 124-A of the Act.
The Court stated that if the words used in a beneficial or welfare statute are capable of two constructions, the one which is more in consonance with the object should be preferred. It was noted that the appellant’s case was not coming within any of the conditions prescribed in the proviso of Section 124A of the Act. Referring to various judgments along with Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, the Court stated that the appeal deserved to succeed since the appellants had successfully proved their entitlement to compensation under provisions of the Act due to death occurred in an ‘untoward incident’.
It was held that the appellants were entitled to a compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs as per Rule 3 Schedule-II of Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rule, 1990. Lastly, since the accident occurred in 2014, it was held that the compensation amount would not carry any interest.
