Sh. Sajjan Singh & Anr. vs Union Of India Through General ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 2093 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         FAO No.106/2011

%                                                 April 19th, 2011

SH. SAJJAN SINGH & ANR.                               ...... Appellants
                     Through:          Mr. Deepender Hooda, Advocate.


                          VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN RAILWAYS
                                               ...... Respondent
                    Through:  Mr. Tejbir Dua, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

    1.   Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
         allowed to see the judgment?

    2.   To be referred to the Reporter or not?

    3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.            The challenge by means of this first appeal under Section 23 of

the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 is to the impugned judgment dated

24.11.2010 which has dismissed the claim petition of the dependents of the

deceased.      In order to understand the peculiar reasoning of the Railway

Claims Tribunal for dismissing the claim, I need only reproduce the relevant

findings of a few lines as under:-


              "By the applicants' own specific admission in the claim
              application, Shri Deepak Kumar fell from the train at
              Mangolpuri railway station.  The applicants have also
              admitted that Shri Deepak Kumar had a ticket, which was
FAO No.106/2011                                                      Page 1 of 4
             valid from Nangloi to Bahadurgarh, and it is relevant to
            mention that Mangolpuri railway station does not fall within
            the Nangloi-Bahadurgarh section, but is a station, which
            falls between Nangloi and Delhi railway stations. It is,
            therefore, apparent that at the time of the incident, Shri
            Deepak Kumar was not a bonafide passenger. Based on
            the evidence on record, all the issues are decided in favour
            of the respondent and against the applicants."

2.          The only reason therefore for dismissal of the claim was that the

deceased Deepak Kumar though had a valid railway ticket for journey from

Nangloi to Bahadurgarh, however he died at Mangolpuri Station which does

not fall on Nangloi-Bahadurgarh Section.       The Mangolpuri station falls

between the Nangloi and Delhi Railway Station.

3.          In my opinion, this is a very curious, unfair, unjustified and

inappropriate finding because once there is a validly purchased rail ticket,

the deceased will be a bonafide passenger unless restrictions are pleaded

and proved by the Railways that only the direct route can be taken for travel

and passenger cannot use alternative more convenient route for the same

day. It thus cannot be said that the deceased did not use the proper travel

route and was therefore equivalent to a ticketless traveler and hence not a

bonafide passenger. This is so because the travel is basically intra region

travel in the region of the National Capital Territory of Delhi which is these

days equivalent of an intra city travel.

4.          The Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Prabhakaran 2008

Vol. 9 SCC 527 and Jameela vs. UOI 2010 (12) SCC 443 has held that

the liability of the Railways under Section 123(c) and Section 124-A is an

FAO No.106/2011                                                   Page 2 of 4
 absolute liability and it has not to be proved that there was any negligence

involved of the Railways. All that has to be proved is an untoward incident.

In the present case, it is not disputed that there was an untoward incident

because the deceased Deepak Kumar fell from the train at Mangolpuri

Railway station. The present case is therefore fully covered by the decisions

in the cases of Prabhakaran and Jameela (supra).

5.          In accordance with the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and Railways

Accident and untoward incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, in case of

death from an untoward incident, the compensation which is payable would

be a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-. In this case therefore the dependents of the

deceased, the appellant herein, will be entitled to compensation of

Rs.4,00,000/-. The appellant will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9%

per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment by

the respondent to the appellant in terms of the decision of the       Supreme

Court in the case of Tahazhathe P. Sarabi vs. Union of India 2009 Vol.

7 SCC 372 wherein the Supreme Court has clarified the position that the

Railway Claims Tribunal and the Courts are entitled to grant interest from the

date of the accident or the date of filing of the petition, as per the facts and

circumstances of each case.

6.          Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The respondent is directed

to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the appellants, dependents of the

deceased Deepak Kumar along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum

simple from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Railway Claims
FAO No.106/2011                                                     Page 3 of 4
 Tribunal. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Trial Court record be

sent back.




APRIL 19, 2011                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ak