High CourtsSingle Bench(2009) 02 P&H CK 0032

Union of India (UOI) vs Vivek Rana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 11 February 2009

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J
RESULT
Dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 279 words

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—Challenge in this appeal is against the order passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh dated 1.5.2008. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 12.3.2005, the claimant (Vivek Rana) was traveling from Jaipur to Jagadhari by train. He was standing near the gate of the compartment of the train for alighting. But due to heavy rush in the train, suddenly, somebody pushed him from backside as result of which he fell down on platform No. 2 and received multiple injuries including an injury on his right leg below knee. His right leg was amputated and he suffered 70% disability in the said railway accident. At the time of accident, he was working for M/s Madhu Auto-Mobile, Yamuna Nagar. The claimant (Vivek Rana) claimed @ Rs. 10 lac on account of injuries suffered in the railway accident. The appellant/Railway took a plea that Railway Administration is absolved from liability as provided u/s 124-A. However, u/s 124-A the Railway Administration is absolved in case of suicide or attempted suit; self-inflicted injury; own criminal act; any act committed in a state of intoxication or insanity; any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.

2.

In the present case, however, it has been found by the learned Tribunal that injuries suffered by the claimant (Vivek Rana) was due to the railway accident which does not fall within the perview Section 124-A of the Act. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and as such the appeal is dismissed, in limine, without any order as to costs.