M.G. Giratkar JUDGMENT
M.G. Giratkar, J.
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. With the consent of learned Advocates appearing for the parties heard finally.
4. This appeal is against the judgment of Railway Claim Tribunal, Member (Judicial), Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (for short the "Tribunal") in Claims Application No. OA (IIu)/NGP/2011/0407.
5. Facts giving rise to the present appeal can be summarized as under:
Deceased-Mohammad Gaus was accompanied by his son Mohammad Rauf, who purchased the Second Class Journey ticket no. 62615773 from Parbhani to Selu. His son handed over the said ticket to deceased-father prior to boarding train. Deceased was old aged person was thrown out of the moving train on account of sudden push by the door, which was behind his back. The deceased fell on the railway track and died due to the injuries. Station Master, Parbhani issued memo in respect of death of deceased aged about 60-65 years. Letter to Police Inspector, Railway Police, Parbhani issued by Deputy Station Superintendent, Parbhani, South Central Railway (Exh. A-36) was in respect of the death of person who fell down from the running train. Inquest Panchnama was carried out. Post-mortem report show that cause of death was due to fracture injuries with hemorrhage shock.
Legal heir of the deceased i.e. widow filed Claim Petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that deceased fell down due to his own negligence and, therefore, claimant is not entitled for compensation in view of the proviso contained in Section 124-A of the Railway Act, 1989 (for short the "Act").
6. Heard Shri Bagul, learned Advocate for the appellant. He has pointed out material documents filed on record and submitted that there is no dispute about the death of deceased. All the material documents show that deceased was travelling with a valid ticket. Deceased fell down from running train due to push of the door as he was standing behind the door. It was not his negligence and, therefore, the appellant is entitled for compensation.
7. Heard Shri Shekhani learned Advocate holding for Shri Agrawal for the respondent. He has strongly supported the impugned judgment. He has pointed out clause nos. (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act and submitted in view of this Section, the appellant is not entitled for the compensation as the deceased died due to his own negligence.
8. Learned Advocate Shri Bagul has pointed out the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jameela and others Vs. Union of India reported in MANU/SC/0656/2010 : 2010 ACJ 2453 and in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in MANU/SC/0522/2018 : AIR 2018 SC 2362. Learned Advocate has submitted that assuming that deceased fell down from the train due to his own negligence, it is not criminal act and, therefore, the appellant is entitled for compensation.
9. There is no dispute about accident. There is no dispute that deceased died while travelling in the train. There is no dispute that deceased was having a valid train ticket.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jameela (cited supra) has held that:
"Assuming that deceased fell down from the train due to his own negligence, it is not a criminal act so as to attract clause (c) of proviso to section 124-A of the Railway Act and, therefore, the Railway/Union of India is liable to pay amount of compensation."
11. In the case of Rina Devi (cited s........