Delhi High Court
Ranjeet Kumar vs Union Of India on 30 August, 2012
Author: Veena Birbal
$~ 13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 248/2011
% Date of decision: August 30, 2012
RANJEET KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through Mr Sanjeev Mehta, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr Amit Dubey, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
VEENA BIRBAL, J.
*
1. Present is an appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1923 against the impugned order dated 15th September,
2010 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') by which claim
application filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
2. It is stated that the appellant had filed an application under
section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act against the Railway
Administration on the ground that he had sustained injuries in an
`untoward incident'. The appellant had alleged that on 5.3.2009, he
was travelling from Delhi Sarai Rohilla Railway station to Patna
Junction in Train no.2388 Jan Sadharan Express in general coach. He
had also purchased a valid railway ticket for the said journey. When
the abovesaid train was passing through Phulwari Sharif and
Sachivalaya halt, the appellant had reached near the gate of the
compartment in order to get down at Patna junction. At that time, the
other passengers had also come near the gate of the compartment and
due to sudden jerk, the appellant fell down from the train and sustained
grievous injurious.
3. The claim petition filed by the appellant was opposed by the
respondent on the ground that alleged accident did not fall within the
purview of `untoward incident' and the claim was based on false and
concocted theory. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, issues
were framed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the appellant himself
appeared in support of his case as AW-1 and exhibited the documents
Ex.AW 1/1 to AW 1/5. Respondent did not adduce any evidence.
4. The Tribunal took the view that appellant has placed on record
the original journey ticket valid from Delhi Sarai Rohilla to Patnas Jn.
The Tribunal further noticed that the only document placed on record
to substantiate that he had a fall from the train was his statement to the
police Ex.AW 1/5. The Tribunal took the view that the said document
cannot be accepted at its face value as the alleged statement had been
made by the appellant only on 3.4.2009 i.e., a month after the alleged
incident and dismissed the claim application filed by the appellant.
Aggrieved with the same, present appeal is filed.
5. Along with the appeal, the appellant has also filed an
application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with section 151 CPC for
leading additional evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant has
contended that the appellant belong to village back ground and the
police had given two unattested copies of the discharge summary. The
said copies were given by appellant to his counsel along with the
claim petition but inadvertently counsel for the appellant could not file
the same and the said relevant piece of evidence could not be brought
on record of the Tribunal. It is submitted that appellant may be
permitted to place on record the said document which will show that
the appellant had remained in the hospital from 6.3.2009 to 9.4.2009
and that due to alleged incident, he has lost both his limbs. It is stated
that the said evidence will justify his stand as to why he could not
make his statement to the police earlier. It is further contended that
the alleged record is from a Government Hospital i.e., Patna Medical
College Hospital. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
the appellant will prove the aforesaid relevant record in accordance
with law before the Tribunal.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that additional
evidence cannot be allowed at this stage as the matter has already been
decided on merits.
7. The finding of the Tribunal in rejecting the claim is as under:-
"As proof that Shri Ranjit Kumar was a
bonafide passenger on the day in question, he has
placed on record the original journey ticket valid from
Delhi-Saria Rohilla to Patna Jn. The respondent's
counsel has, however, contested that fact that this
ticket belonged to the applicant on the grounds that
there is no document placed on record to show that his
injuries were sustained due to a fall from a train. The
police records pertaining to this case nowhere indicate
that the injuries sustained were due to a fall from
train. The only document, which mentions fall from a
train, is the statement of the applicant himself given to
the police vide ex.AW 1/5. However, as pointed out
by the counsel for the respondent, this statement
cannot be accepted at its face value, as it had been
given by the applicant on 3.4.09i.e., a month after the
alleged incident."
8. The learned counsel for the appellant has given explanation as to
why the alleged document pertaining to the accident could not be
furnished earlier before the Tribunal. The alleged record is also stated
to be from the Government hospital. The same has a bearing on the
present case as it will throw light on the contention of the appellant as
to why his statement was not recorded earlier.
9. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside.
Appellant is allowed to lead additional evidence before the Tribunal
i.e., he is permitted to prove discharge summary concerning him issued
by the Patna Medical College Hospital. If any such document is
placed on record, the appellant shall prove the same in accordance with
law. The Tribunal shall decide the matter afresh after considering the
aforesaid material on record. The observations made herein, will have
no bearing on the final outcome of the case and the Tribunal will be
free to decide the claim in accordance with law.
Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Trial court record shall be sent back forthwith.
Parties to appear before the Tribunal on 17.09.2012.
VEENA BIRBAL, J
AUGUST 30, 2012
ssb
