Delhi High Court
Sanjay Chauhan vs Union Of India on 18 August, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No.132/2011
% 18th August, 2011
SANJAY CHAUHAN ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Mohit Batra with Mr. Saunak Das,
Advocates
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajan Sabharwal with
Ms. Seema Bhadauriya, 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 judgment dated
24.11.2010 of the Railway Claims Tribunal whereby the Claim Petition of the
appellant was dismissed. The appellant filed a Claim Petition on the ground
that on 12.9.2008 he was travelling from Mathura to Delhi by Mumbai-Jammu
Tawi Express and because of sudden jerk of the train he fell down near New
FAO No.132/2011 Page 1 of 5
Faridabad Station resulting in amputation of both his legs. A Claim Petition
of Rs.5,00,000/- was therefore filed.
2. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the Claim Petition by
holding that the date of accident was 12th September, 2008, however, the
statement which was got recorded from the appellant/applicant was after
about two weeks on 24.9.2008 where it was said that he had fallen from a
train. The Railway Claims Tribunal disbelieved the report of the
Superintendent of Railway Police, Faridabad, Ex.AW1/3, since the same,
more or less, reproduced the statement of the appellant. Admittedly, even
as per the counsel for the appellant, the Railway Police did not find anything
worthwhile in the stand of the appellant and therefore no inquiry was done
by the Railway Police.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the discharge
summary of Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi dated 10.10.2008, it is stated
that the amputation of legs is on account of falling from the train and
therefore it should be held that the appellant has proved that the appellant
suffered injury on account of falling from the train.
4. In my opinion, the complaint has rightly been dismissed by the
Railway Claims Tribunal. There is absolutely no merit in the appeal. The
following points are noted and which persuade this Court to dismiss the
appeal:-
i) The appellant led a case before the Railway Claims Tribunal that
as a result of falling from the train both his legs were crushed. It is
FAO No.132/2011 Page 2 of 5
nowhere stated in the complaint before the Railway Claims Tribunal as
to how simply because of falling from the train legs of a person can get
crushed. Even in the affidavit by way of evidence filed, it is stated that
the legs were crushed on account of falling down from the train. Legs
of a person can only be crushed by falling from a train if there is
untoward incident of the legs coming under the same train or some
other passing train. Both the complaint and affidavit by way of
evidence are totally silent as to how the legs were crushed, inasmuch
as, it is not the case that the legs got crushed having come under a
train. Counsel for the appellant tried to build up a case during the
arguments that the legs got crushed under the same train from which
the appellant fell down. Firstly I cannot accede to this argument
because no such case is set up. Secondly this stand is totally
unbelievable because if a person falls down on account of jerk from a
train, it is only in very rare cases that he will come under the same
train from which he falls down, because normally, falling from the train
has to be few feet away from the train. It is therefore improbable that
the legs of the appellant were crushed by "falling from a train".
ii) If a person falls from a train, surely, he will not fall legs first. If a
person falls from a train because of a jerk he would be unbalanced and
normally would fall either on his head or his side i.e. ordinarily not on
his legs. There is no averment either in the complaint or in the
affidavit by way of evidence of the appellant suffering any injury in any
FAO No.132/2011 Page 3 of 5
other part of his body, and if the appellant would have been fallen from
a train, he would have definitely suffered serious injuries to various
other portions of the body considering the fact that the case of the
claimant is that his legs were crushed under the same train in which he
was travelling, a case which is now argued by counsel for the
appellant. Thus the fact that no other injuries have been caused and
proved makes the case set up unworthy of belief.
iii) The arguments of the counsel for the appellant that the
discharge summary should be taken as a clear-cut proof of his having
fallen from the train, has no legs to stand upon because the date of
accident is 12.9.2001 and the date of discharge is 10.10.2008. On
10.10.2008, the discharge summary which has been prepared on the
statement of the appellant, thus contains only self-serving insertion of
injuries having been caused from falling from a train on 11.9.2008.
Such self-serving statement, much after the date of the incident,
cannot be believed, more so when there is no proof on record of any
other serious injury to other parts of the person of the appellant.
iv) Normally it is possible that a ticket may get lost in an accident,
but considering the peculiar facts of this case, it is doubtful that the
appellant was a bonafide passenger having a train ticket.
5. I have now been repeatedly observing in many cases which are
coming up before me that after the passing of the Railway Claims Tribunal
Act, there is almost a rush of cases for claims under the Railway Claims
FAO No.132/2011 Page 4 of 5
Tribunal Act, 1989, inasmuch as compensation running into lacs is statutorily
provided under the Act. Many adventuristic litigations are therefore initiated
before the Railway Claims Tribunal for claim of compensation, and the
present complaint and this appeal is obviously one such litigation. I would
have normally initiated proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C., however,
considering that the appellant is already suffering from a huge disability of
having both his legs amputated, I do not find that I should in equity and
justice adopt the course under Section 340 Cr.P.C. I must finally note that I
have sent copies of certain judgments passed by me to the concerned
authorities in the Railways as to the need for appropriate procedure being
set out, appropriate circulars being issued and the Railways staff including
the Railway Police being made aware of the circumstances which lead to
filing of false complaints before the Railway Claims Tribunal.
6. In view of the above, there is not merit in the appeal. The appeal
is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Trial Court record
be sent back.
AUGUST 18, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ak
