Smt.Murti Devi & Ors. vs Union Of India
2011 Latest Caselaw 3930 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         FAO No.132/2010

%                                                         12th August, 2011

SMT.MURTI DEVI & ORS.                                        ...... Appellants
               Through:         Ms. Neha Jain with Mr. Prateek Kohli,
                                Advocates.



                          VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA                                         ...... Respondent
                    Through:    Mr. Arvind Kr. Shukla with
                                Ms. Rekha Giri, Advocates
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?                          Yes

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


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 order dated

30.11.2009       which     dismissed    the       Claim     Petition     of    the

appellants/claimants.

2.            The facts of the case are that the claimants filed a Claim

Petition on the ground that one Sh. Sita Ram died in an untoward incident

on 14.2.2008 while travelling from Kishanganj to Dayabasti, New Delhi in

the train Kalindi Express inasmuch as the train while changing tracks




FAO No.132/2010                                                        Page 1 of 5
 jerked violently which resulted in the deceased's falling down from the

train at Dayabasti Railway station.

3.           The Tribunal has dismissed the Claim Petition on the following

grounds:-

     i)      It is improbable that the deceased would want to travel by

     train between two points of travel which are barely 1/1.5 kilometers,

     when there are more than enough bus services running between

     these two points.

     ii)     Further, there was no question of boarding a long distance

     train Kalindi Express for travel of about just 1/1.5 kilometers.

     iii)    Further, even the so-called train ticket was not filed on record

     and proved.

     iv)     The deceased was in fact a resident of a Jhuggi in Dayabasti

     and possibly while crossing from the tracks he has died in this very

     area as the very first message, Ex.AW1/5, only stated that a man was

     hit by a train.

4.           Learned counsel for the appellants has argued before me that

the Railway Claims Tribunal has committed an illegality in overlooking the

evidence of one Sh. Tribhuvan Ram who is stated to be an eyewitness and

who was also a resident of a jhuggi where the deceased used to stay. It is

also argued that the Railway Claims Tribunal has overlooked the evidence

of another witness Sh. Suraj Kumar Bharti, who deposed that the

deceased had purchased the ticket in his presence. It is therefore argued

that once there is an evidence of an eyewitness not only of the falling


FAO No.132/2010                                                   Page 2 of 5
 from the train but also with respect to the purchase of ticket, it should be

held that the claimants were entitled to compensation because there was

an untoward incident and death due to falling from the train of late Sh.Sita

Ram.

5.          A civil case is decided on the balance of probabilities. There

are always evidences for and against the contesting parties in a Court. A

Court weighs all the evidences and on balancing the same, finds that on

probabilities a particular view should or should not be taken. Unless such

view is totally illegal or perverse, an Appellate Court would prefer not to

interfere. In the present case, the following circumstances persuade me

not to interfere with the decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal:

     i)     It is improbable that for a distance of 1/1.5 kilometers, a

     person would prefer to travel by a train instead of regular buses

     which were admittedly available between two points of travel.

     ii)    The deceased was in fact a resident of Dayabasti, nearby

     where he is stated to have died, and as per the death summary

     report by head injury of a blunt object. On a balance of probabilities,

     it appears that the deceased was in fact moving around the railway

     tracks in and around the place of his residence and unfortunately met

     with death on account of being hit by the train.

     iii)   The very first message, Ex.AW1/5, is only a message of a

     person being hit by a train.

     iv)    No train ticket has been found, and therefore it can be said

     that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. There is no Jama


FAO No.132/2010                                                 Page 3 of 5
      Talalshi report of a ticket being recovered from the deceased.      Of

     course, in many cases as per its peculiar facts where death takes

     place, a ticket may not be recovered, but in the present case it is

     improbable that a ticket would not have been recovered if there was

     indeed purchased a ticket for the travel inasmuch as there was an

     eye witness Sh. Tribhuvan Ram who was a neighbor and who

     immediately reached the spot after the accident, because he states

     that when he came out of his jhuggi, he saw that the deceased fell

     down from the train.

            To the aforesaid facts, I must add that the widow of the

deceased Smt. Murti Devi, who deposed as AW1/1, has given her

residential address in her affidavit of evidence as District Azamgarh, U.P,

and has not given the address of Dayabasti and it has now come on

record that the deceased was a resident of Dayabasti Jhuggi colony and

which was nearby the site of the accident.

6.          I am finding these days a spate of cases, which may not fall

within the purview of Section 340 Cr.P.C, but quite clearly, these cases are

false cases. Though, there is an unfortunate event of death, however, it

appears that certain sections of community, and I would prefer not to

elaborate further, are causing the filing of false complaints before the

Railway Claims Tribunal inasmuch as comparatively a huge amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- is given in case of the death of the deceased.       Though,

counsel for the respondent articulated that one does not even know how

cases are financed, I would prefer not to go into this aspect.        While


FAO No.132/2010                                                 Page 4 of 5
 therefore dismissing this appeal, I would like to send a copy of this order

to the appropriate authorities of the respondent, who of course are not to

use this order in genuine cases where compensation has to be paid, but

this order on being brought to the notice of the necessary authorities

within the railways, are directed to take notice of baseless and false

claims which are being filed under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and

take all such necessary steps to bring to the notice of its appropriate staff

this issue, especially to the Railway Police who should conduct exhaustive

search and enquiry, and use correct expressions in reports which are

prepared so that the same can give a correct and complete picture to the

Railway Claims Tribunals before which the cases come up.

7.          With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is dismissed. The

counsel for the respondent to give a copy of this judgment for circulation

and necessary action to the respondent.




AUGUST 12, 2011                                  VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ak