Skip to main content

Injury while leaning out of train not self-inflicted

In an order with wide ramification, the Punjab and Haryana high court has held that getting injured while leaning out from a train door couldn't be termed as self-inflicted injury as such kind of negligence was not uncommon in the country. HC passed these orders while setting aside the decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal that had denied compensation to the kin of a passenger who died after falling from a train.

Deceased Munna Kumar was travelling from Patna to Ludhiana on a valid ticket on March 27, 2011. When he was passing through Kesri railway station near Ambala, due to heavy rush in the train and a sudden jerk, he fell down and hit a pole and later succumbed to injuries. His widow Sheela Devi was denied compensation by railway authorities on the grounds that the deceased was leaning out of the door and in the process he fell down and struck a pole of an overbridge. The railway had taken the stand that it amounted to self-inflicted injury and own criminal act.
Therefore, under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, the railway was not liable to pay compensation, to his legal heirs, the department had stated. The Chandigarh bench of Railway Claim Tribunal had also dismissed Sheela's application for compensation on September 20, 2013.
Aggrieved with the tribunal's orders, Sheela had filed an appeal before the HC. After hearing detailed arguments of all the parties to decide if leaning out from the door of the train near the railway station amounts to self-inflicted injury or own criminal act, the HC observed that undoubtedly a compartment in which there was stated to be huge rush, the deceased was standing near the door. "I am of the view that it is not a criminal act. Further, it does not amount to self-inflicted injury," held Justice Kuldip Singh in it August 8 orders.
The court also observed that it was purely a case of untoward incident and not a case of self-inflicted injury or own criminal act as defined under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. In my view, the Railway Claims Tribunal erred in declining the compensation to the appellants. "Therefore, the railway was held liable to pay compensation. This kind of negligence is not uncommon in the Indian trains. It could be foolish act of deceased which cost him his life, but certainly it cannot be called his/her own criminal act or self-inflicted injury," held the HC while directing railways to pay Rs 4 lakh as compensation to victim's wife along with 9% interest from the date of the mishap.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376
2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551
3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467
4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298
5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567)



5.The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i)Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii)Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a)Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b)Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii)Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv)Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v)Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects…

Passport - DRT - power to impound - High Court

1) Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D.Ramarathnam. Asst. Passport Officer, 1967 (3) SCR 52
2) Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 (1) SCC 248
3) Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. v. Grapco Industries Ltd., (1994) 4 SCC 710
4) Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2008 (3) SCC 674
5) Damji Valaji Shah & another Vs. L.I.C. of India & others [AIR 1966 SC 135]
6) Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & others [1999 (7) SCC 76]
7) Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others [AIR 1999 SC 3125]
8) Sanjeev R.Apte v. I.F.C.I. Ltd., and others, 2008 (154) DLT 77
9) Smt.Annai Jayabharathi v. The Debt Recovery Tribunal & Anr., CDJ 2005 Ker HC 171
10) Allahabad Bank v. Radhakrishna Maity, AIR 1999 SC 3426
11) Ramalinga v. Radha, 2011 (4) CTC 481
12) Sinnaswami Chettiar v. Aligi Goundan and others, AIR 1924 Madras 893 (OVERRULED)
13) Nallagatti Goundan v. Ramana Gounda and others, AIR 1925 Madras 170
14) Income Tax Officer v. M.K.Mohammad…

DISTINCTION BETWEEN NECESSARY & PROPER PARTY

Who is Necessary to Proper Party

Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum, [1959] SCR 1111, relied on. Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd., (1956) 1 All E.R. 273 and Dollfus Mieg et Compagnie S.A. v. Bank of England, (1950) 2 All E.R. 611, referred to.

National Textile Workers’ Union, etc. v. P.R. Ramakrishnan and Ors., [1983] 1 SCR 922,

distinguished.

Meaning of Necessary or Proper Party

Whether Court could direct plaintiff to add lessee as defendant in suit.

Whether Court has discretion to direct a plaintiff, though dominus litis, to implead a person as a necessary party.

The Supreme Court of India in Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay, (1992) 2 SCC 524 : 1992 (2) SCR 1 : JT 1992 (2) SC 136 : 1992 (1) Scale 530 : 1992 (1) CCC 594 : 1992 (1) RCR 644 : 1992 (2) UJ 181 held that a party can be joined as defendant even though the plaintiff does not think that he has any cause of action against him.

A bench comprisi…