Jaimala and ors. Vs. Union of India - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1128623
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnFeb-10-2014
JudgeVALMIKI J. MEHTA
AppellantJaimala and ors.
RespondentUnion of India
Excerpt:
* in the high court of delhi at new delhi + % jaimala & ors. fao no.46/2014 through:10. h february, 2014 ......appellants mr. raj kumar rajput, advocate. versus union of india ...... respondent through: coram: hon’ble mr. justice valmiki j.mehta to be referred to the reporter or not?. valmiki j.mehta, j (oral) cm no.2608/2014 (delay in refiling) 1. for the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned. cm stands disposed of. fao no.46/2014 2. this first appeal is filed under section 23 of the railway claims tribunal act, 1987 against the impugned judgment dated 10.7.2013 which has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants who are the parents of the deceased person sh. love kumar.3. the facts as pleaded by the appellants was that their son sh. love kumar died on 9.8.2011 in an ‘untoward incident’ as per section 123(c) read with section 124-a of the railways act, 1989. it is stated that on 9.8.2011, at about 4 pm in the evening, the deceased had left home for going to tuglakabad to meet his friends and stated that he would come back. it was further pleaded that the deceased left home with his friends rahul and lala and in their presence, purchased a ticket for travel from tuglakabad to faridabad and they boarded an emu train to reach faridabad. it is then pleaded that as there was a heavy rush in the compartment and deceased was standing near the entrance gate, on account of heavy jerk of the train, the deceased fell down from the moving train between tuglakabad and faridabad railway stations and died due to injuries sustained by the fall. the deceased was found on the railway tracks by a rpf constable. the appellants thus filed the claim petition claiming the statutory compensation of rs. 4 lacs.4. the railway claims tribunal has dismissed the claim petition giving the following conclusions:- (i) the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. no train ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased and nor was any train ticket purchased and was filed and proved in the proceedings. (ii) the residence of the deceased, who was living with the appellants, was not too far away from the railway tracks and therefore, the deceased did not die on account of fall from the train, but would have been injured while crossing the tracks or was run over by a train. (iii) the so called co-passengers, being friends of the deceased, namely rahul and lala were not examined, and who have been the best person to show the purchase of the ticket and also the consequent travel of the deceased on the train.5. before me, counsel for the appellants argued that the deceased should be taken as a bonafide passenger even if no train ticket was found in the jamatalashi report (ex.aw1/6), inasmuch as, it is not unknown that the train ticket gets lost in an ‘untoward incident’. it is also argued that admittedly the body of the deceased was found on the railway tracks and therefore, the deceased would have been injured on account of falling from a train. it is further argued that the deceased was taken by the appellants to their residence as he was alive after he was found on the tracks and consequently the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and it he held that love kumar died in an untoward incident.6. i cannot agree with the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants. no doubt, it is possible that in many cases, a train ticket is not recovered after the accident, but whether or not a person was a bonafide passenger travelling on a train, is to be proved before the railway claims tribunal on the principle of preponderance of probabilities like in a civil case. in the present case, on a totality of circumstances, including the aspect of friends of the deceased namely rahul and lala not having been examined, in my opinion, the railway claims tribunal cannot be said to have committed any illegality in holding that the deceased had not purchased a ticket and was not a bonafide passenger. further, the issue of a ticket having been purchased would be relevant, if otherwise, the falling of the deceased from the train was established, but i find that it has not been established that the deceased was travelling in a train inasmuch as, merely because the body is found on the tracks does not ipso facto mean that the person had fallen down from a moving train. in order to establish that the body which is found on tracks was on account of a fall from the train, it was necessary to show that the deceased was in fact travelling on the train. the conclusions of the railway claims tribunal cannot be faulted with that the deceased has not been proved to be travelling on a train more so because the residence of the deceased is not too far away from the tracks where his body was found.7. in view of the above, i do not find any merit in the appeal, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. february10 2014 ib fao462014
Judgment:

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % JAIMALA & ORS. FAO No.46/2014 Through:

10. h February, 2014 ......Appellants Mr. Raj Kumar Rajput, Advocate. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ...... Respondent Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.

MEHTA, J (ORAL) CM No.2608/2014 (delay in refiling) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned. CM stands disposed of. FAO No.46/2014 2. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the impugned judgment dated 10.7.2013 which has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants who are the parents of the deceased person Sh. Love Kumar.

3. The facts as pleaded by the appellants was that their son Sh. Love Kumar died on 9.8.2011 in an ‘untoward incident’ as per Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. It is stated that on 9.8.2011, at about 4 PM in the evening, the deceased had left home for going to Tuglakabad to meet his friends and stated that he would come back. It was further pleaded that the deceased left home with his friends Rahul and Lala and in their presence, purchased a ticket for travel from Tuglakabad to Faridabad and they boarded an EMU train to reach Faridabad. It is then pleaded that as there was a heavy rush in the compartment and deceased was standing near the entrance gate, on account of heavy jerk of the train, the deceased fell down from the moving train between Tuglakabad and Faridabad railway stations and died due to injuries sustained by the fall. The deceased was found on the railway tracks by a RPF constable. The appellants thus filed the claim petition claiming the statutory compensation of Rs. 4 lacs.

4. The Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition giving the following conclusions:- (i) The deceased was not a bonafide passenger. No train ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased and nor was any train ticket purchased and was filed and proved in the proceedings. (ii) The residence of the deceased, who was living with the appellants, was not too far away from the railway tracks and therefore, the deceased did not die on account of fall from the train, but would have been injured while crossing the tracks or was run over by a train. (iii) The so called co-passengers, being friends of the deceased, namely Rahul and Lala were not examined, and who have been the best person to show the purchase of the ticket and also the consequent travel of the deceased on the train.

5. Before me, counsel for the appellants argued that the deceased should be taken as a bonafide passenger even if no train ticket was found in the Jamatalashi report (Ex.AW1/6), inasmuch as, it is not unknown that the train ticket gets lost in an ‘untoward incident’. It is also argued that admittedly the body of the deceased was found on the railway tracks and therefore, the deceased would have been injured on account of falling from a train. It is further argued that the deceased was taken by the appellants to their residence as he was alive after he was found on the tracks and consequently the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and it he held that Love Kumar died in an untoward incident.

6. I cannot agree with the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants. No doubt, it is possible that in many cases, a train ticket is not recovered after the accident, but whether or not a person was a bonafide passenger travelling on a train, is to be proved before the Railway Claims Tribunal on the principle of preponderance of probabilities like in a civil case. In the present case, on a totality of circumstances, including the aspect of friends of the deceased namely Rahul and Lala not having been examined, in my opinion, the Railway Claims Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any illegality in holding that the deceased had not purchased a ticket and was not a bonafide passenger. Further, the issue of a ticket having been purchased would be relevant, if otherwise, the falling of the deceased from the train was established, but I find that it has not been established that the deceased was travelling in a train inasmuch as, merely because the body is found on the tracks does not ipso facto mean that the person had fallen down from a moving train. In order to establish that the body which is found on tracks was on account of a fall from the train, it was necessary to show that the deceased was in fact travelling on the train. The conclusions of the Railway Claims Tribunal cannot be faulted with that the deceased has not been proved to be travelling on a train more so because the residence of the deceased is not too far away from the tracks where his body was found.

7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the appeal, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. FEBRUARY10 2014 ib FAO462014