Mehtab Son Of Shri Mohd. Sabir vs Union Of India
2011 Latest Caselaw 3336 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         FAO No.60/2011

%                                                       14th July, 2011

MEHTAB SON OF SHRI MOHD. SABIR             ...... Appellant
                    Through:  Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate with Ms.
                              Gurpreet Kaur, Advocate.


                          VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA                                      ...... Respondent
                          Through:    Ms. Shilpa Singh, 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 by the minor child

through his father against the impugned judgment of the Railway

Claims Tribunal dated 10.11.2010 which has dismissed the claim

petition in which it was alleged that the minor fell down from a running

train and sustained grievous injuries.


2.            The appellant/applicant in the claim petition stated that he

alongwith his father Mohd. Sabir was travelling on 7.3.2010 in E.M.U

train from Dayabasti to Sadar Bazar Railway Station and that due to

FAO No.60/2011                                              Page 1 of 6
 heavy rush of passengers the minor appellant i.e., master Mehtab fell

down from the train and sustained injuries. It was further stated that

ticket was lost in the accident as the bag containing the journey ticket

and other belongings of the father Mohd. Sabir were lost in the

aftermath of accident.


3.         The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition by making the

following pithy observations:-


        " Regarding the nature of the incident, the applicant has
        stated that due to heavy rush of passengers, Master
        Mehtab, who was accompanied by his father during travel,
        fell down from the running train. However, the initial police
        records pertaining to this case, ex.AW1/4 and ex.AW1/5
        merely state that Master Mehtab had been cut down by a
        train giving the impression that it was a case of run over by
        the train. There is also on record the statement of Shri
        Mohd. Sabir, the father of the injured applicant, who has
        stated that he and his son had valid tickets, which were lost
        after the accident. However, it is significant that although
        Shri Mohd. Sabir claims that he was travelling with his son
        when the unfortunate incident occurred, he himself has
        admitted that he was not present at the site when his son
        was removed to the Hospital by the police. According to
        him, his son had fallen just beyond Dayabasti and as the
        train had stopped only at Vivekanandpuri railway station,
        he returned to the site of the accident from that station.
        Considering the fact that Vivekanandpuri railway station is
        little more than a kilometer from the site of the alleged
        incident, it is inconceivable that he would not have reached
        the site before the police had arrived and taken the injured
        to the hospital. It is important to note that the police first
        are to be called by some person at the site, who has seen
        the injured, and for police to arrive at the site and make
        arrangements for transporting the injured, it takes a fair
        amount of time. The fact that Shri Mohd. Sabir was not
        able to arrive at the site to see his injured son, is clear
        evidence of the fact that he was actually not travelling by
        the train. It is also relevant to mention that the residence
        of Shri Mohd. Sabir was in a Jhuggi near to Dayabasti, and
FAO No.60/2011                                           Page 2 of 6
         in all probability, Master Mehtab was a victim of run over by
        a train, as there is no evidence on record to show that he
        was either a bonafide passenger of the train concerned or
        that he sustained grievous injuries on account of an
        accident fall from the train. These issues are decided
        accordingly in favour of the respondent and against the
        applicant."
4.         I completely agree with the findings of the Railway Claims

Tribunal in that the appellant had failed to make out the requisite case

that he was injured while travelling as a bonafide passenger in a train.

Reference to the D.D. entry shows that all that was stated was that the

claimant suffered injuries because of having been run over by a train.

Normally, the railway police in case of serious injuries being caused to

a person on account of a fall from a train or a death resulting by falling

from the train normally makes a detailed report mentioning the factum

with respect to fall from the train. Further, in the present case, the

Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the case of the claimant that the ticket

was lost in the aftermath of the accident. I may note that facts of the

present case are not such that there has been a death on account of an

untoward incident and consequently the ticket which may have been in

the deceased's possession was lost in the untoward incident. In the

present case, there is no death but only injuries are stated to have

been caused. More importantly the alleged ticket was admittedly not

with the minor/applicant, but with his father, who suffered no injuries

and who continued the travel in the train till the next station around

just a kilometer away. Further, it is found as a matter of fact that the

injured was taken away, to the hospital even before the father of the
FAO No.60/2011                                           Page 3 of 6
 applicant reached the site. Surely, it cannot be that a father would not

have reached the accident site which is admittedly a kilometer away,

within 10 to 15 minutes, and the injured child had to be carried by the

police to the hospital. In the facts of the case also, it is clear that it

was not as if the police post was located immediately adjacent to the

place where the injury is alleged to have been caused to the child by

falling from the train for the police have immediately reached the spot.

Also, the Tribunal in my opinion seems to be justified in making the

observation that since the place of accident is not too far away from

the place of residence of the applicant, it is possible that the applicant

would have suffered injuries on account of either walking on the

railway tracks or crossing the same near about his residence.


5.         I am noticing that many cases are coming up before this

Court where it is more than amply clear that there is a systematic

endeavour to defraud the railways because of the enactment and

implementation of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 which

provides for statutorily fixed compensation in case of an untoward

incident. In case of death the compensation is fixed at Rs. 4 lacs, and

which can be very large amount in many cases. It is high time that this

practice of filing fraudulent claims against the Railways pursuant to the

Railway Claims Tribunal Act is looked into very strictly, though of

course in those limited number of cases where it is ex facie clear that a

fraud is sought to be perpetrated on the Railways. The facts of the

FAO No.60/2011                                           Page 4 of 6
 present case show a clear attempt by the applicant, who is only a

minor, and therefore actually his father Mohd. Sabir to defraud the

railways.   For pursuing a fraudulent case and seeking compensation

perjury has been committed by making statements on oath before the

Railway Claims Tribunal by filing an affidavit by the said Mohd. Sabir. I

wish that Mohd. Sabir was better advised by his lawyers before the

Railway Claims Tribunal but unfortunately this did not happen possibly

because of the high amount of compensation.


6.          The provision of Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (Cr.P.C.) provides for a complaint being filed before a concerned

Metropolitan Magistrate in case any of the offences as stated in the

said section are found to have been committed. The offences which

are mentioned in Section 340 Cr.P.C. are those offences contained in

Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. A reference to Section 195(1)(b) shows that it

includes the offences of perjury, giving false affidavits etc. and which

are punishable under Sections 193, 199, 200 and 209 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (IPC). Prima facie, in the present case there is made out a

case for a complaint to be registered by the Registrar General of this

Court acting under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against Mohd. Sabir through

whom the present appeal has been filed and through whom the claim

petition was also filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal and who has

committed the offences of perjury, giving false evidence, giving and

using false declaration and making a false claim.

FAO No.60/2011                                           Page 5 of 6
 7.         Accordingly, while dismissing the appeal, I direct the

Registrar General to make a complaint to the concerned Metropolitan

Magistrate having jurisdiction and also take such other steps as are

required in law under Section 340(1)(d) &(e) Cr.P.C.


8.         The matter be listed before the Registrar General of this

Court on 10.8.2011 in terms of the present order. A copy of this order

be sent to Railway Claims Tribunal.


           With   the   aforesaid     observations,   the   appeal   stands

dismissed and disposed of.




JULY 14, 2011                                   VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne