Union Of India vs Radha Devi
2011 Latest Caselaw 4681 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         FAO No.424/2011

%                                           22nd September, 2011

UNION OF INDIA                                         ...... Appellant
                     Through:   Mr. Manoj V. George with
                                Ms. Shilpa George, Advs.



                          VERSUS

RADHA DEVI                                               ...... Respondent
                     Through:    None.

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 of

the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 14.6.2011, and by which judgment, the

Railway     Claims   Tribunal   has   allowed   the   Claim   Petition   of   the

respondent/widow for the death of her son, Sh. Rahul in an untoward

incident on 7.12.2009.

2.            The facts of the case are that the deceased Sh.Rahul was

travelling by train from Delhi Junction to Ghaziabad on 7.12.2009. He fell

down from the train near old Seelampur Fatak/gate resulting in his death

whereupon the subject Claim Petition was filed.
FAO No.424/2011                                                    Page 1 of 6
 3.              The appellant/railways contended before the Railway Claims

Tribunal that deceased was not a bonafide passenger of the train in

question in which the deceased was said to be travelling.      It was also

argued that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger travelling on a

valid ticket.

4.              The Railway Claims Tribunal has held the deceased to be a

bonafide passenger travelling on the train inasmuch as during the

Jamatalashi/search of the body of the deceased, a train ticket bearing

no.42243612 was, in fact, recovered. This recovery is mentioned in two

reports/DD entries of railway police officials. The Railway Claims Tribunal

also held that the documents Ex. AW1/7 to Ex. AW1/9, and which

documents are: the DD entry no.17 dated 7.12.2009, the statement of the

Head Constable Sh. Om Prakash and the copy of the brief facts as

prepared by the railway police, quiet clearly showed that the deceased

had fallen down from a train. The Railway Claims Tribunal therefore held

that the deceased was a bonafide passenger who fell from a train and

therefore there was an untoward incident within the meaning of the

expression as found in Section 123 (c) read with Section 124-A of the

Railways Act, 1989 consequently statutory compensation was bound to be

awarded to the respondent. An important aspect noted by the Railway

Claims Tribunal was that normally the railway through the DRM conducts

an inquiry whenever there is an untoward incident, but in the present case

there was no investigation/verification report of the railways conducted

through any agency.


FAO No.424/2011                                                Page 2 of 6
 5.             Learned counsel for the appellant stressed two points before

this Court:-

      i)       The first argument was that as per the Guard Memo Book of

      the train from which the deceased is stated to have been fallen

      down, shows that the departure timing of the train in fact was 6.10

      P.M. from the Delhi railway station and whereas the first information

      of the death relied in the case was received around 5.30 P.M i.e.

      earlier and consequently it could not be said that the deceased was

      travelling in the train which is stated in the Claim Petition.

      ii)      The second argument was that it has not been established

      that the deceased in fact fell from the train and that the death is

      result of a fall from the train.    It is argued that the incident in

      question has not been proved to be an untoward incident within the

      meaning of expression as found in Section 123(c) read with Section

      124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

6.             In my opinion, the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal

does not call for any interference by this Court as there is no illegality in

the same.       It cannot be disputed that the deceased was a bonafide

passenger because admittedly during the search/Jamatalashi of the

person of the deceased the ticket was in fact recovered by the Railway

officials themselves.    The body was lying unattended till the same was

searched by the railway officials and it could not therefore be said that the

ticket had been planted on the body. Also, there was no relative or friend

or any person who was personally travelling with the deceased and who


FAO No.424/2011                                                    Page 3 of 6
 had reached the site of the accident before the Railway officials found the

body in order to plant the ticket. Therefore, it is proved beyond all doubt

that the deceased in fact had purchased a railway ticket and was

travelling as per the railway ticket making him a bonafide passenger.

7.         The only issue then remains is as to whether the deceased in

fact fell from a train or not. The Railway Claims Tribunal has relied upon

the documents Ex.AW1/7 to Ex.AW1/9, and which are the documents of

the officials of the appellant being the DD entry, the brief facts and also

the investigation report of the Head Constable which showed that the

deceased had fallen from a train. I completely agree with this finding and

conclusion more so because the present is not one of those cases where

the deceased was living in and around the area or was having an

office/work place in or around the area where the death by untoward

incident took place. Clearly therefore the death would have to be

accidental and because of a fall from the train. The provisions of Section

123 (c) and Section 124-A have been enacted as a social/beneficial

legislation for social welfare vide UOI Vs. Prabhakaran, 2008 (9) SCC

527. Such provisions have to be interpreted liberally once it is found that

the facts do not show that the deceased died as a result of his own

criminal negligence, and only in which case of self-inflicted criminal

negligence can compensation be denied vide Jameela & Ors. vs. UOI

2010 (12) SCC 443.

8.         At the first blush the argument as raised on behalf of the

appellant with reference to the Guard Report of the train 1 DM seemed to


FAO No.424/2011                                                Page 4 of 6
 indicate as if that the deceased did not fall from the local train 1 DM

considering that the Claim Petition states that the deceased died by fall

from a local train No.1-DM whereas the train 1DM had only left the Delhi

railway station at 6.10 P.M. and the first report of a person lying dead near

the track was earlier of around 5.30 P.M. However, this confusion in my

opinion   can   very   well   be   explained   from   the   fact    that   the

respondent/widow was not travelling in the train with the deceased and

also there was no other acquaintance/relative traveling with the deceased

in the train and therefore the widow would have mentioned the train

number in the Claim Petition only on the basis of information received.

Though the train number could have been wrongly stated in the Claim

Petition, however, considering the balance of probabilities as per which

the civil cases has to be decided, the deceased in fact quite clearly had

died on account of a fall from a train in view of the documents of the

respondent's officers themselves being Ex.AW1/7 to Ex.AW1/9. Therefore,

even if one accepts the report of the guard, and which document has

been filed and exhibited as Ex.RW1/1 before the Railway Claims Tribunal,

yet, on that basis itself it cannot be said that the deceased did not die by

a fall from a train.   The deceased may not have died by fall from the

specific train as stated in the Claim Petition, however, it has to be held

that he died on account of fall from a train in view of the documents of the

respondent itself being documents Ex. AW1/7 to AW1/9. Credence is very

much there of the factum of death on account of fall from a train, because

as already stated, the place of death is neither near the residence nor the


FAO No.424/2011                                                    Page 5 of 6
 work place of the deceased for the accident to be of any form of criminal

negligence/self inflicted injury of wrongly standing on the railway tracks or

crossing of the railway tracks.

9.           Accordingly, I do not find that the impugned order of the

Railway Claims Tribunal requires to be interfered by this court in appeal

for the respondent/widow to be denied compensation for death of her son

who was a bonafide passenger and who died on account of an untoward

incident of a fall from a train.

10.          Dismissed.




SEPTEMBER 22, 2011                               VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ak