Union Of India vs Smt. Sheela Yadv And 5 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1062 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved on 31.03.2022
 
Delivered on 11.04.2022
 
Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3275 of 2013
 
Appellant :- Union of India
 
Respondent :- Smt. Sheela Yadv And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Tarun Verma,Praveen Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Ramesh Prajapati
 

 
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

1. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This F.A.F.O. has been filed against the judgment and award dated 04.09.2013 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Gorakhpur Bench, Gorakhpur in Case No. O.A./IIU/85/08/JNU (Smt. Sheela Yadav Vs. Union of India) awarding a sum of Rs.4 lakhs to the claimants-respondents along with 6% interest from the date of application till the date of payment.

3. Case, in brief, is that one Lal Chandra Yadav is alleged to be travelling from Ahimanpur Railway Station to Varanasi, while boarding the train at Ahimanpur Railway Station, on 14.04.2007, he fell down and sustained several injuries and, on 15.04.2007, at about 03.45 a.m. succumbed to his injuries.

4. The respondents no.1 to 6 are the claimants being the wife and children of late Lal Chandra Yadav, who had filed claims petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal on the ground that Lal Chandra Yadav was a valid passenger having a ticket and after he fell down, the Station Master, Ahimanpur, at about 09.10 p.m. sent a memo requiring for immediately attending as a person has fallen from train and be given medical attention. The GRP then immediately recorded incident and the injured was immediately taken to hospital for first aid and during his treatment, Lal Chandra Yadav died on 15.04.2007.

5. The Railway Authorities filed their written statement denying the fact that late Lal Chandra Yadav was a valid passenger as he had not purchased ticket while trying to board the Train No.562 (DN). It was also stated that no one accompanied the deceased and the incident does not come under the untoward incident and claims petition was not maintainable. In the additional plea, the Railways took a plea that during search, no ticket was found from the custody of late Lal Chandra Yadav.

6. It was further averred that in the diary maintained at Railway Station, Ahimanpur, there is no mention of ticket recovered from the custody of the injured person who had sustained injuries by Train No.562 (DN), on 14.04.2007. The Tribunal framed the following issues:-

" 1. Whether deceased was a bona fide passenger of said train?

2. Whether alleged incident falls u/s 123 C(2) of R.A.?

3. Whether applicants are dependants of deceased?

4. Relief?"

7. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the Railway Authorities found that as in paras 28 and 31 of the written statement, the Railways stated that Lal Chandra Yadav fell down while boarding the train and had died and no ticket was recovered from his custody, thus, issue no.2 in regard to the incident, comes under untoward incident, of Section 123(C) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and a case is made out and compensation is payable under Section 124-A of the Act and being a beneficial legislation the claimants were entitled for compensation.

8. Further, the Tribunal while deciding issue no.1 recorded a finding that in such type of incident, the ticket is sometimes misplaced as the claimants have stated in their claims petition that the deceased was having valid ticket was accepted.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Section 2 (29) of the Act defines a passenger, according to which "passenger" means a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. According to him, the deceased was not carrying any valid ticket at the time when the incident took place and further no ticket was recovered from his custody as there is no mention in the diary of Ahimanpur Railway Station. He further submitted that the DRM has also conducted an enquiry and report was submitted, wherein it was found that the deceased was not having valid ticket. According to him, the Tribunal did not record any finding as to valid ticket while deciding issue no.1 and solely relying upon the fact that it being the beneficial legislation and the passenger had died, the claims petition was allowed.

10. He then contended that there is no admission on the part of the Railway Authorities as has been stated in the judgment/award and the Tribunal without recording any finding regarding untoward incident as given under Section 123(C)(2) read with Section 124 (A), the award is unsustainable. He has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court, in case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi, Civil Appeal No.4945 of 2018 decided on 09th May, 2018 and the decision rendered in the case of Kamrunnissa Vs. Union of India 2019 (12) SCC 391.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants-respondents submitted that the Railway Authorities in their written statement have not denied the factum that memo was sent by the Station Master Ahimanpur on 14.04.2007 for attending a passenger who had been injured while boarding the train. The GRP acting on the said memo had noted the report and the injured Lal Chandra Yadav was taken to hospital by the GRP and during his treatment, he died on 15.04.2007.

12. He further submitted that the only denial in the written statement by the Railway Authorities is to the factum that no ticket was found in the possession of the deceased Lal Chandra. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of Madras High Court in case of R. Vasanthi & Others Vs. The Union of India, Owning Souther Railway, Rep. by General Manager, 2017 0 Supreme (Mad) 3458. Relevant para 9 and 10 are extracted hereasunder:-

"9. On a careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, it could be seen that the appellants have filed the claim petition without producing the ticket purchased by the victim. In the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants it has been held that it is not possible for the legal representatives to produce the ticket or valid authority, who travelled in the train, and the burden of proving that the deceased-victim was not a bona fide passenger is on the Railways and not on the appellants.

10. The Apex Court as well as this court had repeatedly held that the burden of proving that the victim is not a bona fide passenger lies on the Railways and that non-production of Railway ticket is not fatal to the case of the appellants. Therefore, the Tribunal should not have dismissed the petition on that ground."

13. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of Madras High Court in case of The Union of India owning Southern Railways rep. by its General Manager Vs. A. Logambal & Others 2014 0 AIR Madras 72.

14. I have heard the rival submission of the parties and perused the material on record.

15. Before adverting to decide issue in hand, a cursory glance of Section 2 (29), Section 123(C) (2), and Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 are necessary for the better appreciation of the case and are extracted hereasunder:-

"Section 2 (29)- "passenger" means a persons travelling with a valid pass or ticket.

Section 123 (C)- "untoward incident" means -- (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.

124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incident.--When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident: Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to--(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;

(b) self-inflicted injury;

(c) his own criminal act;

(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;

(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "passenger" includes--

(i) a railway servant on duty; and

(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident."

16. From the conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that an incident to be covered under untoward incident, accidental falling of passenger from a train carrying passenger has to be proved for making a claim of compensation on account of untoward incident. The word "passenger" has been defined as a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. Thus, when a person having a valid railway pass or ticket meets with an accident, and is injured or dies, a claim petition can be moved by him in case of injury or in case of death by the claimants/legal heirs/legal representatives.

17. Here is a case where deceased Lal Chandra Yadav was trying to board a train at Ahimanpur, Railway Station for Varanasi, he fell down and sustained injuries which is not disputed to the Railway Authorities that deceased had sustained injuries while boarding the train and on 15.04.2007, he died. It is also not in dispute that the Station Master had immediately sent a memo on 14.04.2007 at 09.10 p.m. on which the GRP had recorded a report, after which, the injured was taken to hospital and was given treatment. The Railway Authorities in their written statement have only set up a case that Lal Chandra Yadav was not a passenger as he was not having a valid ticket and, during search, no ticket was found from his custody. The said facts have been narrated in paras 28 and 31 of the written statement.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant also, on the basis of said facts, submitted that as Lal Chandra Yadav was not having a valid ticket and thus, was not a passenger as required under Section 123(C)(2) and thus, the case was not covered under the untoward incident and no compensation could be awarded under Section 124-A of the Railways Act.

19. I think, the argument of learned counsel is totally misconceived as there is no denial of the fact that the accident occurred while Lal Chandra Yadav was boarding the train. The Railway Authorities had immediately issued memo and report was lodged with the GRP and injured was taken to hospital.

20. Only question, which arises for consideration, is that without a valid ticket, the case of the claimants can be considered under Section 123(C)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act.

21. The Apex Court has cleared the air in regard to the said fact in the decision of Rina Devi (Supra), wherein the Hon'ble Court held that mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. The Court further held that initial burden will be on claimants which can be dispatched by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and then burden will shift on the Railways and issue has to be decided on the facts showing or attending circumstances. The relevant para 17.4 of the said judgment is extracted hereasunder:-

" 17.4- We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the Railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased 27 was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly."

22. Thus, in view of the law laid down by Apex Court, this Court finds that the claimants in their claim petition had categorically stated that the deceased was carrying a valid ticket. The Railway Authorities solely relying upon the station diary of Ahimanpur Railway Station have come up with a case that there is no mention of any ticket recovered from the custody of injured who has sustained injuries by falling down from the train. Thus, it is an admitted case that deceased Lal Chandra Yadav was travelling on the said date by Train No.562 (DN) and the claimants have come with a specific case that Lal Chandra Yadav was having a valid ticket. The Apex Court in clear terms had held that mere absence of ticket with the deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger, and once the initial burden was dispatched by the claimants, it was upon the Railway Authorities to prove, otherwise. In the present case, except on the basis of the daily diary of the Station Master, nothing was brought on record to prove that the passenger was not having a valid ticket.

23. The normal presumption is that a passenger in Railways holds a valid ticket, when it is a specific case that while boarding the train, deceased fell down, the burden is heavily upon the Railway Authorities to prove that he attempted such journey without purchasing a ticket. Since, the burden has not been dispatched by the Railways that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, the Tribunal rightly recorded finding that deceased was a bona fide passenger.

24. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in case of Rina Devi (Supra), no case for interference is made out in the judgment/award dated 04.09.2013.

25. Appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed.

Order Date:- 11.04.2022

SK Goswami

[Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.]