Manglu Ghosh & Anr. vs Union Of India Gm Northern Railway
2014 Latest Caselaw 1954 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+               FAO 538/2011
%                                  17th April, 2014
MANGLU GHOSH & ANR.                ......Appellants
                Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv.

                     VERSUS
    UNION OF INDIA GM NORTHERN RAILWAY                      ...... Respondent
                     Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.             This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway

Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated

29.7.2011       by    which     the      claim   petition    filed    by        the

appellants/claimants/parents of the deceased Prashanta Ghosh was

dismissed.


2.             The facts of the case are that the deceased Prashanta Ghosh, a

resident of West Bengal was travelling from Malda Town to Delhi on

26.6.2007 after purchasing a railway journey ticket bearing no.20992056.

Deceased Prashanta Ghosh boarded the train no. 3483 Up Farakha Express




FAO 538/2011                                                                    Page 1 of 4
 from Malda Town to Delhi on 26.6.2007. When the train reached near Dabar

Railway Station, and which is near Bulandshehar; UP, at about 12.45 at

night, the deceased Prashanta Ghosh accidently fell down from the train on

account of sudden jerk/jolt in the train, and this accident resulted in his

death. The matter was reported to the police who lodged the DD No.45

dated 28.6.2007. The subject claim petition was thereafter filed by the

appellants/petitioners.


3.             The Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition

although the original journey ticket was filed and proved as Ex.AW1/9 on

the ground that there is a contradiction in the deposition of the father who

appeared as AW-1 that whereas in the claim petition it was mentioned that

the ticket was with the police, in the cross-examination it was stated that the

ticket was given to him by his brother. The Railway Claims Tribunal has

accordingly held that since there was no recovery of the ticket from the

person of the deceased in the jamatalashi/panchnama Ex. AW1/7, the

deceased cannot be said to have been a bona fide passenger.


4.             The judgment of the Tribunal in my opinion is quite clearly

illegal. It is to be noted that liability of the Railways is indubitably a strict

liability as per Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act,

FAO 538/2011                                                                  Page 2 of 4
 1989 and so held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India Vs.

Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 527 and Jameela and

Ors. Vs. Union of India (2010) 12 SCC 443.The judgments of the Supreme

Court clarify that the liability is fastened on the Railways even assuming

there is negligence of the bona fide passenger. I may note that the body of

the deceased was found hundreds of kilometers from the point of beginning

of the journey i.e somewhere near Bulandsheher, UP inasmuch as the

journey commenced at Malda in West Bengal and clearly therefore if the

body of the deceased was found lying on the tracks, it could only be if the

deceased had fallen down from the train. I may note that the railways

admittedly led no evidence whatsoever before the Tribunal, and therefore,

this is an important aspect for this Court to hold that the death of Prashanta

Ghosh took place in an untoward incident as per the meaning of the expression

in Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.


5.             In my opinion, too much has been made out by the Tribunal of an

alleged contradiction of the ticket having been stated in the claim petition to be

with the police but in the cross-examination to have been received by the father

AW-1 from his brother. This finding is an incorrect finding on account of

lack of appreciation of the documents filed before the Tribunal


FAO 538/2011                                                                   Page 3 of 4
 because before the Tribunal appellants filed the document Ex.AW1/5 and

which shows that the brother of AW-1 i.e brother of the father of the

deceased namely Pandav Ghosh was the person who had gone to the

accident site and had identified the body and he interacted with the police.

Therefore, it is the brother Sh. Pandav Ghosh, who would have received the

luggage of the deceased Prashanta Ghosh from the police, and in which

luggage the ticket was found. Therefore really there is no contradiction as

has been found by the Tribunal but really it is lack of appropriate reading of

evidence on behalf of the Tribunal for incorrectly holding that the deceased

was not a bona fide passenger although a valid journey ticket has in fact

been filed and proved before the Tribunal.


6.             In view of the above, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is

set aside. Appellants will be entitled to statutory compensation of Rs.4 lacs

in equal proportion. Appellants will also be entitled to interest at 7 ½ % per

annum simple from the date of filing of the petition before the Tribunal till

the date of payment. Parties are left to bear their own costs.



APRIL 17, 2014                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib