Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Kashmir Kaur & Ors on 5 May, 2010
Author: Rekha Sharma
UNREPORTABLE
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
FAO No.183/2010 & C.M. No.8343/2010
Date of Decision: May 05, 2010
UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant
through Mr. G.S.Chaturvedi, Advocate with
Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
versus
KASHMIR KAUR & ORS ..... Respondents
through Ms. Pratima N. Chaudhary, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA
1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? No
REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
This appeal has been preferred against the order of Railway
Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the
'Tribunal') dated November 20, 2009. By virtue of the impugned
order, the appellant has been directed to pay to the respondents who
are the legal heirs of late Ajit Singh, a sum of Rs.4 lacs by way of
compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum.
It is not in dispute that the said Ajit Singh along with Jasbir
Singh and Kulwant Singh had boarded train No.9223
Ahmadabad - Jammu Tawi Express on April 27, 2007. Their place of
destination was Jalandhar. On the following day, i.e. on April 28, 2007
at about 9.00/10.00 a.m. when the train reached near Mallawala Khas,
Ajit Singh fell down from the running train resulting in his death.
It is the case of the respondents that Ajit Singh had gone to the
toilet and after he came out from there, the train started jerking and
as a result thereof, he fell down from the running train. On the other
hand, it is the case of the appellant that Ajit Singh did not fall from
the train because of any jerk but he committed suicide by jumping out
of the running train, as he was in a state of depression. The appellant
has based its so-called theory of suicide on the statement of Kulwant
Singh who was travelling with Ajit Singh. It is stated that the said
Kulwant Singh soon after the accident made a statement to the police
and in his that statement, he informed the police that Ajit Singh was
behaving like a mad person because of some depression and it was on
account of his mental state that he jumped out of the train.
The Tribunal has disbelieved the version of the appellant and in
my view, rightly. Kulwant Singh, on the basis of whose statement the
appellant had set-up the theory of suicide, did not support his
statement when he appeared as a witness before the Tribunal. As per
Kulwant Singh, the police had taken his signatures on blank papers
and that he never made a statement as was being attributed to him.
According to him, it was on account of sudden jerking of the train that
Ajit Singh fell down from the same.
Having regard to the fact that the only person, on the basis of
whose statement the appellant had propounded the theory of suicide,
has not owned up his statement, allegedly, made by him before the
police, I am of the view that the Tribunal was justified in discarding
his said statement and relying upon the statement as made by him
before it. I find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal.
It may also be noted that the appeal is even otherwise barred by
time, as it has been filed 67 days after the expiry of period of
limitation. No cogent ground has been given in the application for
condonation of delay except the usual explanation that it took time in
processing the file for the purpose of taking a decision, whether or not
to file the appeal.
For the fore-going reasons, the appeal and the application are
dismissed.
Caveat No.128/2010
The caveator has been heard.
C.M. No.8342/2010
This is an application by the appellant under Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure seeking exemption from filing certified copies
of the application for compensation and the testimony of respondent
No.1 before the Tribunal. The application is allowed subject to all just
exceptions.
REKHA SHARMA, J.
MAY 05, 2010
ka
