Judgment:
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.210/2013 28th March, 2014 % JABAR SINGH YADAV Through: ....Appellant Mr. Yogesh Swroop, Mr. B.K. Roy, Advocates VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Through: ...... Respondent Mr. Raheel Kohli, Advocate for Mr. Ravi Prakash, 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 impugns the judgment of the Tribunal dated 11.12.2012 by which the Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant/father of the deceased Ms. Anita Yadav, who died in an untoward incident on 2.3.2011. 2(i) The facts of the case are that Ms. Anita Yadav, a Sub-Inspector in U.P. Police and the daughter of the appellant/petitioner before the Tribunal, was traveling with her brother Sh. Jitender on 2.3.2011 from Ghaziabad to Old Delhi Railway Station by the Padmavat Express train after purchasing two tickets. It was the case of the appellant that when the train was passing through Shahdara station, all of a sudden due to jerk and jostling, Ms. Anita Yadav fell down from the moving train and consequently sustained grievous injuries. Ms. Anita Yadav due to the injuries, died in the hospital during the same day. (ii) Respondent contested the claim petition by pleading that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Respondent also contended that the deceased must have tried to get down while the train was passing at Shahdara station to cut short the time to reach her brother’s house at East Arjun Nagar Colony and in this process she died because of her own criminal negligence.
3. Before me, learned counsel for the appellant has rightly argued that the documents filed by the respondent itself before the Tribunal, including the document Ex. RW-1/1 dated 2.3.2011, show that one person had fallen down from the train 4205 Express Train while passing through Shahdara station, Platform nos. 4 & 6 and this person indubitably is the deceased Ms. Anita Yadav, because it is not the case of the respondent that any other person fell down from the train 4205 Express on 2.3.2011. Similar certificate has been proved on record as Ex. AW-1/2. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that it is not unknown that in such untoward incident cases, the ticket can be lost, and that the ticket was in fact lost because the deceased Ms. Anita Yadav was carrying a small bag which contained the train ticket, and this bag was lost in the untoward incident. It is also argued that all the other documents being AW-1/3 to AW18 show that accident in question did happen on 2.3.2011, and which documents are the DD entries of the police and the reports made by the police.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent very vehemently canvassed and argued the case of the respondent by relying upon the DRM’s report dated 10.7.2012 which has been filed before the Tribunal, that in view of this report it is clear that the deceased was trying to get down from a running train, and that consequently the Tribunal had rightly held that Ms. Anita Yadav died on account of her own criminal negligence. It is also argued that once no train ticket was found from the deceased the Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.
5. In my opinion, for two reasons, the arguments urged on behalf of the appellant merit acceptance and accordingly I do not find any substance in the arguments which are urged on behalf of the respondent. Firstly, from a mere report of the DRM it cannot be held and concluded that the deceased died while trying to get down from a running train because the DRM’s report is not based on any eye-witness or a statement of any person that Ms. Anita Yadav was trying to get down from a running train. There can be no presumption, either in law or in fact, of the deceased Ms. Anita Yadav trying to get down from the train merely because the body was found to have rolled over for some distance, inasmuch as, surely when a person falls down from a train the body can in such cases also undoubtedly roll over for a distance once there is an even surface like a platform in this case. Secondly, in my opinion, it is not a correct conclusion to draw in a case such as the present of no train ticket having been purchased, inasmuch as, specific evidence is led that the deceased was carrying a small bag containing the train ticket which has been lost in the accident. This is the specific evidence given by the brother of the deceased namely Sh. Jitender, who was a co-passenger with the deceased, and he appeared before the Tribunal and deposed as AW2 with respect to purchase of the two tickets for travelling from Ghaziabad to Old Delhi Railway Station and the same were in her bag which was lost at the time of the accident.
6. The Supreme Court has in the judgments in the cases of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC527and Jameela and Ors. Vs. Union of India (2010) 12 SCC443held that the liability of Railways under Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 is a strict liability for an ‘untoward incident’ as per the meaning of the expression as found in these sections. If one was to accept the DRM’s report in a case like this, and which is not based on an eye-witness account, the same would amount to committing a mockery of the principle of strict liability of the Railways.
7. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the Tribunal dated 11.12.2012 is set aside. Appellant along with Smt. Ramkali, who is the mother of the deceased Ms. Anita Yadav, will be entitled to the statutory compensation of Rs.4 lacs in equal parts. The statutory compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs will carry pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum simple till payment. Parties are left to bear their own costs. MARCH28 2014 godara FAO No.210/2013