Judgment:
$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO2912011 11th February, 2014 % SH. BIHARI SHAH AND ORS. ..... Appellants Through Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.
MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This first appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,1987 has been filed by the dependent of the deceased Master Raju impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated 24.11.2010 dismissing the claim petition.
2. The Railway Claims Tribunal has held that there was no dispute that an untoward incident occurred of falling of Master Raju from the train while travelling from Subzi Mandi to Samaipur Badli on 8.4.2009, and this is FAO2912011 Page 1 expressed in the following conclusion of the Tribunal:
“Regarding the nature of the incident, there is on record, the evidence of Sh. Nand Kishore Singh and Sh. Bihari Shah stating that Master Raju fell down from a moving train. This version is further confirmed in the DRM’s report which has concluded that Master Raju fell down from the running train due to his own negligence while going to Badli. However, in view of the fact that the locus standi of the applicants as dependents of the deceased is in doubt as also the fact that in the Jamatalashi no ticket was recovered raising doubts regarding the bonafides of Master Raju as a passenger, there is no option but to dismiss the case.”
3. The Tribunal has however dismissed the claim petition essentially on the ground that no train ticket was found on the person of the deceased and therefore the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.
4. I cannot agree with the conclusion of the Railway Claims Tribunal that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger inasmuch as it is not unknown that a train ticket can be lost in such an untoward incident of falling from the train more so when the deceased was travelling alone and not in the company of anyone else. Also, in my opinion, the purchasing of the train ticket for the deceased Master Raju has been proved by leading of evidence on behalf of the appellant of one Sh. Nand Kishore Singh, uncle of the deceased Master Raju, and who deposed as AW-2 that he alongwith Master Raju came to Subzi Mandi Ghanta Ghar, Delhi for supplying soaps etc, and he stayed back for pending work but he purchased a ticket with a sum of Rs.2/- from the Subzi Mandi railway station for the deceased Master FAO2912011 Page 2 Raju for travelling back to Samaipur Badli railway station. Sh. Nand Kishore Singh was not cross-examined by the respondent. Consequently, in my opinion, the appellants have discharged the onus upon them of the deceased Master Raju being a bona fide passenger. It is also relevant to note that respondent led no evidence in the present case before the Tribunal. In my opinion, therefore, it is proved that the deceased Master Raju was a bona fide passenger on the train as the ticket was purchased for him for travelling from Subzi Mandi to Samaipur Badli.
5. In view of the above, appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 24.11.2010 and the appellants are held entitled to the statutory compensation of Rs.4 lacs alongwith interest @ 6% per annum simple from the date of filing of the petition till the payment. In view of the doubt expressed by the Tribunal of identity of the appellants, the disbursal of the compensation shall be made by the respondent, as also the bank where the compensation amount will be credited, after ensuring the identity of the appellants as being the parents of the deceased Master Raju.
6. Parties are left to bear their own costs. FEBRUARY11 2014 godara FAO2912011 VALMIKI J.
MEHTA, J Page 3