Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Delhi High Court Critiques RCT’s ‘Flawed’ Reasoning in Railway Death Case, Affirms Deceased as Bona-fide Passenger

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court, led by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharmesh Sharma, has overturned the Railway Claims Tribunal's (RCT) decision, awarding compensation to the family of a deceased passenger who died in a railway accident. The judgment, pronounced on January 4, 2024, marks a noteworthy development in the realm of railway accident compensation claims.

The case involved an appeal filed under Section 23 of The Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, by the claimants, the family of the late Sh. Ramavatar. The RCT had initially dismissed the claim petition, citing discrepancies in the location of the deceased’s body and the nature of the injuries. The High Court, however, found this reasoning flawed.

Justice Sharma, in his judgment, emphasized, "Ex-facie, the aforesaid reasons are absolutely flawed and belies common sense and logic." He further stated that the deceased was a bona-fide passenger within the meaning of Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989, and that the nature of injuries sustained indicated he was run over by a train, either immediately after falling or sometime thereafter.

The Court noted, "Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, it is evident that he was run by another passing train either immediately after the fall or sometimes thereafter." This observation was crucial in overturning the RCT's decision.

Decision, the Court awarded a statutory compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with an interest rate of 9% per annum from the date of the accident, i.e., December 23, 2018, until its realization. The compensation amount was apportioned among the deceased's wife, children, and mother.

Date of Decision: 04 January 2024

ANITA DEVI  & ORS. VS UNION OF INDIA   

 

Latest Legal News