Judgment:
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :
13. h DECEMBER, 2017. DECIDED ON :
5. h JANUARY, 2018 + FAO2742015 FAKKAR MOHAMMED & ANR. ..... Appellants Through : Mr.D.Sabharwal, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through : Mr.A.S.Dateer, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P GARG, J.
1. Present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been filed by the appellants - Fakkar Mohammed and Abida Khatoon to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 11.07.2014 of the Railways Claims Tribunal (hereinafter ‘the Tribunal’) by which their claim petition filed was dismissed. The appeal is contested by the respondent.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Claim petition was filed by the appellants before the Tribunal on 02.01.2012. It was averred that on 30.10.2011, the deceased Dil Hussain @ Badrul was going to Aluabari (West Bengal) FAO2742015 Page 1 of 5 from Delhi Railway Station to celebrate Eid along with his six friends/villagers. They all boarded the train Mahananda Express No.14084 from Delhi Railway Station. There was heavy rush in the compartment and the deceased and his six villagers/friends did not find any seat. They stood on the gate of the compartment. After some time when the train reached at Shahdara Railway Station due to jerk and jolt coupled with the pressure of the rush in the compartment, the deceased fell down from the moving train at Railway track K.M. Pole No.6/12-
P/F No.3 Shahdara Railway Station, Delhi. Due to this untoward incident, he died at the spot and was taken to GTB hospital where post- mortem on the body was conducted.
3. The claim petition was contested by the respondent. It was alleged that the petitioners were not entitled to compensation as Dil Hussain @ Badrul was not a bona fide passenger in the train; no ticket was recovered from him. There was no evidence to prove if the deceased was travelling in the train No.14084, Mahananda Express from Delhi Railway Station to Aluabari (West Bengal) or he had purchased any ticket. It was further claimed that the injuries were not sustained by the victim in the train accident or on account of untoward incident; the injuries were self-inflicted.
4. The petitioners examined Fakkar Mohammed (petitioner No.1) as AW-1. The respondent relied on several documents Mark R-1 to R-14. Upon perusal of the evidence and documents on record, the learned Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the claim petition. The Tribunal was of view that the petitioners were unable to prove that the FAO2742015 Page 2 of 5 victim was their son or that he was also known by the name of Dil Hussian.
5. The findings of the learned Tribunal are not based upon any acceptable evidence. There was no positive evidence on record that the victim was not the son of the appellants. Specific query was raised during arguments and the learned counsel for the respondent was asked if anybody else had claimed any compensation for the death of the victim in the incident. The response to it was negative. It was further asked if the Railways authorities were able to ascertain as to who else were the parents of the victim and where they lived. There was no response to it. Apparently, none else had claimed that the body recovered at the time of the incident was not that of the appellants’ son. The petitioners are aged people who live in West Bengal. It is highly unbelievable that they would file claim petition for the death of a stranger claiming it to be the body of their son Dil Hussain @ Badrul. In the written statement filed by the respondent, there was no assertion if Dil Hussain was not known as Badrul. It was also not claimed if Dil Hussain and Badrul were two different and distinct individuals. The appellant No.1 has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (AW-1). In the cross-examination he claimed that the deceased was his son and his name was Dil Hussain, aged around 22 years. He further informed that his wife was Abida Khatoon and she was alive. It was further stated that the information about the occurrence was conveyed to him at around 8.30 a.m. by his other son Chan Mohammed who was travelling with the victim. Nothing was suggested to the crucial witness if Dil FAO2742015 Page 3 of 5 Hussain was not known as Badrul or that the victim was not his son. The identity of the victim to be the appellant’s son was not challenged.
6. Number of documents have been placed on record whereby an enquiry was conducted by the competent authority regarding the incident. In the proceedings including post-mortem examination report, the name of the victim has been mentioned as Dil Hussain @ Badrul. Ticket bearing PNR No.2656392497 reveals that the victim was not travelling alone and was accompanied by five other friends/villagers. Chan Mohammed, victim’s brother, was one of them. In the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C., the statement of Chan Mohammed was recorded wherein he categorically identified the victim to be his brother. No sound reasons exist to disbelieve the testimony of the brother and father of the victim.
7. The findings of the learned Tribunal that petitioner No.1 Fakkar Mohammed was unable to disclose the correct name of his father, are also inconsequential. The petitioners are aged and illiterate people. The documents were prepared by someone else. Identity of petitioner No.2 to be the mother of the victim has been clearly established. Merely because father’s name of the petitioner No.1 has been recorded differently in different documents, it does not prove that the petitioners have not presented true facts.
8. In view of the above discussion, the findings of the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained. The appeal is allowed. The appellants shall be entitled to statutory compensation of `8,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 02.01.2012 till the date of order. FAO2742015 Page 4 of 5 9. Renotify on 30th January, 2018 before Roster Bench for further directions regarding disbursement of the compensation to the appellants.
10. The appellant and his wife shall remain present in Court on the next date of hearing.
11. Copy of this judgment be sent to Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench at Delhi. JANUARY05 2018/sa S.P.GARG (JUDGE) FAO2742015 Page 5 of 5