Sh. Deep Narayan vs Union Of India
2011 Latest Caselaw 4491 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         FAO No.355/2010

%                                                 14th September, 2011

SH. DEEP NARAYAN                                        ...... Appellant

                                  Through:   Mr. Arun Srivastava, Adv.

                          VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA                                          ...... Respondent

Through: Mr. Abhinav Jain, Adv.

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)

CM No.17134/2010 (delay in refiling)

For the reasons stated in the application the delay in refiling is

condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

FAO No. 355/2010

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 3.2.2010 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, and by which judgment,

the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the

appellant who claimed to have been injured on account of a fall from a

train near Badli on 17.11.2008.

2. The case of the appellant/claimant in the claim petition filed

before the Railway Claims Tribunal was that he had purchased a second

class general ticket for travelling from Adarsh Nagar to Holambi Kalan,

Delhi. This is mentioned in paras 7 and 7A of the Claim Petition. In para

11 of the Claim Petition, it is said that the train ticket was lost as the

hand bag containing journey ticket was lost. The case which was set up

in the claim petition was that the appellant on 17.11.2008 was

travelling from Adarsh Nagar to Holambi Kalan and since the train was

over crowded and it took strong jerk/jolt, he fell down from the moving

train and suffered injuries. It was then alleged that the right leg of the

appellant came in the wheel of the train and which had to be

amputated. It was further the case of the appellant that he became

unconscious and was lying near the track for the whole night and in the

morning he was taken to hospital when he was discovered lying near

the track by a railway employee.

3. As contrasted to the case set up in the claim petition of not

travelling with anyone and of having purchased a second class general

ticket which got lost, in the affidavit by way of evidence the case

however was laid out that actually the appellant was travelling with two

of his friends namely Sh. Suresh and Sh. Sanjay and the computerized

joint train ticket for a total of three persons was purchased by the friend

Sh. Suresh who had the same. While climbing the train, the appellant

was separated from two of his friends who had to climb another

compartment due to the rush of passengers and at the end of the

journey his friend threw away the ticket and without waiting for him the

friends left the station for their homes. In the affidavit, by way of

evidence the appellant did not mention that he had become

unconscious and in fact laid out a case that he remained lying on the

spot for the whole night as the place of the accident was a lonely place.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition pointing out to

the various inconsistencies in the pleadings and the evidence on behalf

of the appellant and which inconsistencies were serious contradictions.

Some of the relevant observations as given by the Railway Claims

Tribunal read as under:-

Regarding Issue No.1, the Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that in the claim application, it is mentioned that the applicant boarded the train 1-HNK from Adarsh Nagar Railway Station to Holambi Kalan, Delhi Junction on 17.11.2008 in the night after purchasing a valid journey ticket & the said journey ticket lost during the accident. In support of this issue, the applicant placed on record a document AW1/7 i.e. the original Railway Journey Ticket, when the applicant was examined as AW1. The Ld. Counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant was a bonafide passenger of the train in question on 17.11.2008. However, onus lies on the respondent to prove that the applicant was not a bonafide passenger of the train in question.

On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the contents of the affidavit AW1/1 & the claim application are contradictory to each other regarding the validity of railway journey ticket. In para No.7 & 11 of the claim application, it is stated by the applicant that the applicant lost his hand bag containing the railway journey

ticket & clothes due to accident. But, the applicant in his affidavit AW1/1 stated that the ticket on the strength of which the applicant was travelling with his friends from Adarsh Nagar Railway Station to Holambi Kalan had been thrown away by his friend Sh. Suresh & it was a computerized single ticket for three persons.

Xxxxxxxxx

In the present case, I observe that the applicant in his pleadings stated that the information regarding his injury falling down from the train, was given by the Railway line man to the GRP, who brought the applicant to the Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital. But no such document was placed on record by the applicant to prove that information regarding the accident was given by Railway lineman to the GRP. However, the respondent placed on record a document R1 i.e. the report of Station Master Badli, that no such untoward incident occurred or reported on 17.11.08 at Badli Station. Regarding the above said report, the applicant did not submit any explanation. The contents mentioned in the claim application & affidavit AW1/1, are contradictory to each other on the ground that in the affidavit the applicant stated that he was travelling with his two friends, namely Suresh & Sanjay, but the said fact was not mentioned in the claim application. So, it is clear that it is an after-thought. If the applicant was travelling with his friends then why the applicant remained lying on the railway whole night on 17.11.08."

4. In addition to the aforesaid findings and conclusions of the

Railway Claims Tribunal, I would like to take note of the following:-

(i) The pleading and the evidence of the appellant in the Railway

Claims Tribunal is totally silent as to what is the occupation of the

appellant. This is important because these days almost everyone has a

mobile phone and it was not the case of the appellant that he became

totally unconscious after falling from the train. The appellant, therefore,

could very well have contacted someone since he was not unconscious.

(ii) There is no reason why a person who would only be seriously

injured in the leg would prefer to keep on lying near the track and not

drag himself to a reasonable distance or at least shout and raise hue

and cry. Of course, the appellant has sought to contend that he fell

down near a lonely place, however, the DD No.6 clearly shows that the

appellant had fallen near Badli Gate i.e. a Railway Crossing gate.

Surely, at a Railway Crossing Gate there would have been a railway

employee manning this gate. The stand of the appellant therefore

totally lacks credibility.

(iii) It is not believable that the other two friends of the appellant,

assuming they were friends, would not wait at the railway station for the

appellant at the destination because the train ticket for all the three

persons was allegedly with Sh. Suresh and the appellant would have

required the ticket at the time of exit from the train and thus the friends

would have waited for the appellant or at least made enquiries.

5. A resume of the facts of the present case show the following

important conclusions.

(i) Whereas in the claim petition a case was laid out that the ticket

was lost in the accident, in the evidence, a totally new case was laid out

that the ticket was with his friend Sh. Suresh who threw the ticket on

the completion of the journey.

(ii) No where in the claim petition, it is mentioned that the appellant

was travelling with his two friends, and this totally new case of the

appellant travelling with his friends, and that too having purchased the

joint computerized ticket of three persons, has come out for the first

time only in the affidavit by way of evidence filed.

(iii) The appellant has deliberately not proved his occupation in life

which would have been very vital to arrive at a conclusion on the issue

of there having taken place the untoward incident of the appellant

falling from the train. It is inconceivable for a person to say that

although the serious injury was only in the leg, he continued to lie

throughout the night near the railway tracks and did not choose to drag

himself or raise a hue and cry, considering that Badli Railway Gate was

near the place of incident. It is also doubtful therefore that the

appellant in fact had fallen near the lonely place. I may only add that

throughout the railway tracks in the city like Delhi, there is hardly a

lonely place and at most of the places adjacent to the tracks either

there are constructions or habitations or some or the other activities. In

the facts of the case and considering that the appellant was only

seriously injured in the leg, this becomes very relevant.

(iv) It is not possible that the friends would have made no enquiries

about the appellant on reaching destination or in fact not make hectic

enquiries if the appellant was not found at all. It is inconceivable that if

the appellant was travelling with friends, such friends would simply

leave for their homes, more so considering the fact that the ticket of the

appellant was with Sh. Suresh and Sh. Suresh would have known that

the appellant would have been accosted at the gate of railway station

for the ticket.

(v) If the appellant really did fall from the train, there was no reason

why someone or the other in the train would not have either tried to pull

the chain or raise hue and cry or at least orally reported the incident to

at least one railway employee. After all, the train was alleged to be

chok-a-blok with passengers. This further shows the total lack of

credibility in the case of the appellant.

6. I, therefore, completely agree with the Railway Claims Tribunal

that there was no untoward incident of the appellant falling from a train.

7. I have been observing in a few judgments of mine that many

appeals are coming up before this court and in which cases it is quite

clear that these cases are completely false cases and an endeavour is

being made to get statutory compensation running into lacs of rupees

which is allowable by the Railway Claims Tribunal. In one of the cases,

being FAO 60/2011 titled as Mehtab Vs. Union of India decided

on 14.7.2011, I have also initiated proceedings under Section 340

Cr.P.C.

8. In the present case also, it is quite clear that the claim is ex facie

false. Instead of however proceeding under Section 340 Cr.P.C, I would

prefer to impose costs on the appellant so as to act as deterrent to

similarly situated persons who chose to file false claims. This appeal is

therefore dismissed with costs of Rs.15,000/- and which costs be paid

within a period of four weeks from today.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Trial court record be sent

back.

SEPTEMBER 14, 2011                              VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib