Non-production of the Identity Card along with the season ticket by a passenger, who had sustained injury due to an accidental fall, itself would not render a valid season ticket, invalid: Bombay High Court
The decision that the non-production of an identity card along with the season ticket by a passenger, who had sustained injury due to an accidental fall, itself would not render a valid season ticket, invalid was upheld by the Bombay High Court through Justice Sandeep K. Shinde in the case of Harish Chandra Damodar Gaikwad v. Union of India (FIRST APPEAL NO. 979/2009)
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the appellant’s application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, in which compensation was sought for injuries received as a result of an accidental fall from a train carrying passengers. As a result, the current appeal was filed.
Respondents had challenged the claim, claiming that the appellant had suffered injuries as a result of his own actions and negligence, and so the claim was inadmissible in the absence of an “untoward event” as defined by Section 123(c) of the Act, 1989.
The Tribunal found that while the appellant was carrying and having the legitimate ‘Pass’ and journey extension tickets, the season ticket could not be declared valid due to the lack of an identification card, and thus the applicant was a passenger travelling without a ticket.
JUDGEMENT:
The appellant was travelling in a passenger train with a legal and suitable season ticket and journey extension tickets, according to the High Court, and this fact was not in dispute. In the Court’s judgement, failure to provide the Identity Card together with the season ticket by a passenger who had received injuries owing to an accidental fall would not render a valid season ticket unlawful for more than one cause.
The High Court ruled that the compensation sought was for the appellant’s injuries sustained in a “untoward incident,” and that the Railway Claim Tribunal should proceed to award remuneration to the appellants in accordance with Rule 3 of the Rules, 1990, after verifying the medical evidence presented by the appellant in support of his claim.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY REETI SHETTY