Smt. Babi Kunvar vs Union Of India
2014 Latest Caselaw 1785 Del

7

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                               FAO 218/2012

%                                                        2nd April, 2014

SMT. BABI KUNVAR                                       ......Appellant
                          Through: Mr. Shubhashis R. Soren, Mr. Tushar
                          Taneja, Advocates

                          VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA                             ...... Respondent

Through: Mr. Joydeep Mazumdar, Mr. Debojyoti Bhattacharya, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. I have in the recent past while dismissing the appeals which have been

filed against the judgments passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal

dismissing claim petitions, simultaneously initiated proceedings under

Section 340 Cr.P.C because I am finding that there is now a rash of cases

wherein because of the high statutory compensation of Rs. 4 lakh which is

payable on account of a death in an untoward incident, there is an organized

racket in certain cases to get the huge statutory compensation of Rs. 4 lakh

and which is awarded with pendente lite and future interest. The present

appeal is one such false and dishonest litigation.

2. In the present case, the claim petition was filed claiming that the

deceased Amar Singh, husband of the appellant/petitioner died in an

untoward incident on 17.4.2010 near the Okhla Railway Station, New Delhi

while traveling from Haridwar to Kota in Rajasthan and which journey was

alleged to have begun on 16.4.2010. The case as set up by the appellant was

that the deceased was accompanying his friends Amar Singh and Lala @

Bachcha who saw him fall from the train and his consequent death in an

untoward incident as per the meaning of the expression in Sections 123(c)

and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

3. The Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition by

making the following salient observations :

"6.4.3 The statement of Amar Singh, the alleged eyewitness and co- passenger of the deceased is analysed as under :-

i) He has not been produced by the applicant before tribunal for examination.

ii) He has stated in his statement before the police that after Amar Singh (since deceased) fell down from the running train at Okhal railway station, he got down at the next station and came back and found his companion Amar Singh in dead condition. In the meantime, the police came on the spot. However, the said statement of Amar Singh was not recorded at

the spot on 17.4.2010 but on the next day i.e. 18.4.2010. Thus, there is a reasonable suspicion on the statement of Amar Singh.

iii) If he was present on the spot, the body would have been surely identified then and there itself and not on the next date i.e. 18.4.2010, as mentioned in the brief facts (AW1/8).

In view of the above, the evidence of Amar Singh is considered unreliable and unworthy of credence. 6.4.4 Brief facts (AW1/8) :- is not based on the evidence of independent witnesses on the spot, but is based on unreliable and unworthy evidence of Amar Singh and hearsay evidence of AW-1. Thus, AW1/8 is not considered having any evidence value.

6.4.5 In the post mortem report (AW1/9) the M.O. has opined that the cause of death is due to combined effect of intracranial damage and spinal injury due to blunt force impact. All injuries are ante mortem.

6.4.6 Final police report (AW1/10) : The conclusion drawn by the IO is that the death of the deceased was due to train accident.

In view of the above, there is no averment in any of the credible documents that the deceased fell down from the train. 6.5 The case of the respondent on the other hand, is that the deceased did not fell down by Firozpur-Mumbai Janata Express, as alleged in the claim application, but was hit (run over) by coupled light engine at Okhla railway station. In support of their contention, the respondent has adduced the evidence of Shri A.K. Shahai, Station Supdt. Okhla Railway Station (RW1) in this regard, who has deposed during his oral evidence that on 17.4.2010 he was on duty from 8.00 to 16.00 hours. Once couple light engine which was going from Tughlakabad to New Azadpur, passed through Okhla railway station at 15.03 hours. After five minutes of passing of this engine, Hd. Constable (RPF) told him that one person has been hit (run over) by this engine and he has died. The incident

occurred between 15-26/26-28 on line No. 1, which fals under Okhla railway station yard. He also deposed that Line No. 1 is the good line, and on this line, only goods train and passenger trains leaving for Ghaziabad are received. No mail/express train is received on line No. 9024 Janata Express, which goes from Firozpur to Mumbai, came on line No. 6 at 14.02 hours and left at 14.12 hours. He further deposed that no incident took place by this train. Between line No. 1 and 6 there are two high level island platforms and distance between there two lines is about 50 meters.

The incident in question happened on line No. 1 is corroborated by the death report, filed by the applicant alongwith the claim application. The sketch plan of the place on page 2 of the death report, prepared by the police shows that body was found near line No. 1. The Firozpur-Mumbai Janata Express on the other hand, arrived on Line No. 6 which is about 50 meters away from line No. 1 and in between the two lines, there are two high level island platform.

The time of the incident i.e. at about 15.03 hours, when the coupled light engine passed through Okhla railway station, matches with the information received by A.K. Shahi, station Supdt. Okhla railway station at 15.08 hours and by the police at 15.10 hours.

Further the oral evidence of RW1 could not be controverted by the learned counsel for the applicant during cross-examination. There is also no reason to doubt or disbelieve the oral evidence of A.K. Shahi, Station Supdt., Okhla Railway Station." (emphasis added)

4. A reading of the aforesaid paras of the impugned judgment shows the

following three important conclusions arrived at by the Railway Claims

Tribunal for holding that the claim petition was bogus:

(i) If the co-passenger Amar Singh was travelling with the deceased, and

who came back to the spot, after alighting at the next station, and the police

admittedly was found at the spot then, there was no reason why police would

not have recorded the statement of Sh. Amar Singh on the same date ie on

17.4.2010 but only on next day ie 18.4.2010. I may note invariably in all the

cases of death on railway property, the railway police or the local police on

the same day when the body is found, itself records the statements and

which more importantly surely would have been recorded of the alleged eye

witnesses and which is Amar Singh in this case. Admittedly not only Sh.

Amar Singh's statement to the police has not been recorded on the date of

the incident but recorded on the next day i.e on 18.4.2010 even the

identification of the body is on the next day ie 18.4.2010. Firstly, Sh. Amar

Singh never came into the witness box and this clearly shows that he was not

ready to stand the test of cross-examination by which truth would have been

elicited.

(ii) Even the ticket relied upon by the appellant was filed with the

authorities not on the date of the incident but on the next date which clearly

shows that a ticket was a procured ticket.

(iii) The most important aspect is that the deceased could not have been

said to have fallen down from the Firozpur-Mumbai Janata Express

inasmuch as that train passed on line no. 6 at Okhla Railway Station on the

date of the incident i.e 17.4.2010, but, the body of the deceased was found at

line no. 1 which is a goods yard line on which the Firozpur-Mumbai Janta

Express did not pass on 17.4.2010. The Tribunal has discussed the

necessary evidence being the statement of RW-1, Sh. A.K. Shahi, Supdt.

Okhla Railway Station that it was reported to him that on line no. 1 a person

was hit over by a coupled light engine.

5. I may note that in the present case the name of the second so called

co-passenger, namely Lala @ Bachcha was not originally stated in the claim

petition, and name of this person Sh. Lala @ Bachcha was brought in by

virtue of an application for amendment to the claim petition. The

application for amendment to the claim petition is dated 15.2.2011. I note

that the impugned judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal does not even

show that Sh. Lala @ Bachcha thereafter appeared as a witness in the case in

support of the appellant.

6. In my opinion, the aforesaid conclusions of the Railway Claims

Tribunal are unimpeachable and the claim petition is completely a dishonest

and false one filed only to claim the substantial statutory compensation of

Rs. 4 lakhs. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

7. While dismissing the appeal, I direct Registrar General of this Court

to conduct an enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C against the appellant and all

persons who could be said to be abetting the appellant for filing of this

wholly false claim before the Tribunal. Let the parties appear before the

Registrar General on 24th April, 2014 and whereafter the Registrar General

shall conduct the necessary enquiries for submitting his preliminary enquiry

report under Section 340 Cr.P.C to this Court.

APRIL 02, 2014                                    VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
godara