Shiekh Mohammad Rahim And Ors vs Union Of India

Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Girish Mohan Singh and learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Gautam Rakesh

The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned award whereby their claim has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide judgment dated 11.02.2016

in Case No. OA(IIU)/RNC/2014/0037 on the ground that deceased, Shiekh Mohammad Rahim was neither travelling in the train as passenger nor

was holding platform ticket rather deceased was a site representative of Shri Ganesh Dubey contractor of Ganesh Enterprises and he was travelling in

L.M. trolley for site inspection. One multiple light engine coming from opposite side got head on collision, resulting in death of Shiekh Mohammad

Salim and one Budhu Ram Mahali, head trackman, both died at the spot. However, there is no provision under Section 124 A of the Railway Act for

payment of the compensation in such incident therefore, the claim application is not maintainable under Section 124A of the Railways Act for payment

of compensation as claimed by the applicants.

Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention of this Court towards definition of Railway servant as envisaged under Sub-Section (34) of

Section 2 of the Railways Act, 1989, which reads as follows:-

“railway servant†means any person employed by the Central Government or by a railway administration in connection with the service

of a railway [including member of the Railway Protection Force appointed under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Railway

Protection Force Act, 1957 (23 of 1957)].

Learned counsel for the appellants has further drawn attention of this Court towards Section 124A of the Railways Act including the explanation (i)

Passenger includes a Railway servant on duty, the provision of Section 124A of the Railways Act along with explanation is quoted herewith:

“[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 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.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, “passengerâ€​ includes-

(i) a railway servant on duty; and

(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and

becomes a victim of an untoward incident.]â€​

Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Gautam Rakesh has submitted that since the provision is not under the Railway claims Tribunal, as such, the

compensation has not been paid by the Tribunal.

Be that as it may, impugned award shows that deceased, Shiekh Mohammad Salim was a site representative of Shri Ganesh Dubey contractor of

Ganesh Enterprises. He was travelling in a L.M. trolley for site inspection hit by a light engine coming from opposite side resulting in death of Shiekh

Mohammad Salim and one Budhu Ram Mahali, head trackman at the spot. Section 2 sub-section (34) of the Railway Act clearly shows that any

person employed by the Central Govt. or by Railway Administration in connection with service of a Railway including member of Railway Protection

Force appointed under Clause C of sub-section 1 of section 2 of the Railway Protection Act is covered under the definition Railway servant then how

a person, who is working for betterment of the Railway under a contract is not entitled for such benefits?

It is undisputed that deceased was not an unauthorized person on Railway track rather he was on a Railway trolley, which was hit by a multiple light

engine causing death of two persons as such, the respondent Railway is directed to file counter affidavit, in this regard as well as with regard to the

compensation to the claimants, who are the legal representative of deceased Shiekh Mohammad Salim and the action taken by the Railway regarding

death of head trackman, Budhu Ram Mahali in the same incident.

It is expected that Railway Claim Tribunal must file their counter affidavit by 17.12.2019, as copy has been served upon the learned counsel for

Railway on 17.02.2017.

Put up this case on 20.12.2019.