Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

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   

 

Similar News