Delhi High Court
Sh. Nathi Lal & Anr. vs Union Of India on 30 April, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 24/2014
% 30th April,2014
SH. NATHI LAL & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. S.S.Sisodia, Adv.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA ...... Respondent
Through: Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv.
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 which
has dismissed the claim petition.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellants/claimants filed the
claim petition stating that their son Sh. Mannu died in an untoward incident
on 24.3.2011 while travelling in an EMU train from New Delhi to
Ghaziabad. It is stated that Mannu accidently fell down from the running
train and died at the spot. Mannu was said to be accompanied by his real
brother namely Sanjay.
FAO 24/2014 Page 1 of 5
3. The claim petition has been dismissed by the Railway Claims
Tribunal by giving the following conclusions:-
(i) There was no FIR of the accident on the date of the accident but the
information to the police was given after two days.
(ii) If there was an accident of a fall from the train on a crowded platform,
surely someone or the other would have reported the incident. In any case, in
my opinion, railway officials would have in the course of their official duties
noted this aspect if an untoward incident had occurred.
(iii) Though the deceased Mannu was accompanied by his brother Sanjay,
Sh. Sanjay was not brought into the witness box but only his statement
before the police was filed and exhibited as Ex.A-7 and consequently, the
said document could not be believed.
(iv) No ticket has been filed to show that the deceased was a bonafide
passenger and filing of ticket was more so required in the facts of this case
where the deceased was accompanied by his real brother. No valid
explanation is given for loss of the ticket.
4. The aforesaid conclusions are arrived at in terms of paras 6 to
11 of the impugned judgment and which read as under:-
FAO 24/2014 Page 2 of 5
"06. The applicant claims that on 24.03.2012, his son late
Mannu, while travelling along with his brother Sanjay from
New Delhi to Ghaziabad by an EMU train, accidently fell down
from the overcrowded compartment of the running train on
platform no.06 of the destination station, due to a sudden jerk
and sustained grevious injury. According to the applicant, the
victim was rushed to MMG Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi where he
succumbed to his injuries on 26.03.2011. Further, the applicant
adds that the articles including the journey ticket, which were in
his pocket, could not be traced after the incident.
07. The applicant was given four opportunities from
23.11.2012 to 17.07.2013 but during this period of eight
months, no witness except himself turned up to give evidence.
The so called eye witness Sanjay, the brother of deceased
neither came to describe how the accident occurred nor filed
any affidavit, describing the incident. However, the statement
of Sh. Sanjay S/o Shri Nathi La, the applicant recorded by the
police at GTB Hospital (Ex.R-1/13) gives a different version of
the incident. According to him, the deceased fell down, while
deboarding from the running train at platform no.06.
08. There is no evidence on record to show that Mannu was
ever taken to MMG Hospita, Shahdara. No document referring
his case to GTB Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi is also available on
record. Even the MLC prepared in GTB Hospital after he was
admitted there, has not been filed as evidence. What is filed as
evidence, in connection with the case is the death summary,
which reveals nothing about the background of the incident,
which caused grievous injury to Mannu leading to his death on
26.03.2012.
09. To sum up, the entire case has been built up on the basis
of a statement given by the brother of the deceased. It is
strange that no passenger either travelling by the train or anyone
waiting for trains on platform no.06 of Ghaziabad station,
noticed and bothered to inform the station authorities about
someone falling from the train.
FAO 24/2014 Page 3 of 5
10. The applicant claims that the deceased was travelling
with a proper II class ticket but the same got lost in the incident.
The question here is who looked for Mannu's tickets? Sanjay
reveled nothing about ticket after Mannu's death to the police.
As per his statement(Ext. A-7), he rushed his brother to the
hospital. The police comes to investigate only after his death
on 26.03.2011. in this situation the claim of the applicant
appears hollow.
11. Under normal circumstances, non-recovery of a ticket
does not mean that the deceased was a ticketless traveler.
However, the case of Mannu is different. Here the accident
occurred at a busy station but neither anyone saw him falling
nor there was any information with the railways/police about it
for the next two days. This suggests that the deceased was not
a bonafide rail passenger and he did not fall from any EMU
train on platform no.06 of Ghaziabad station on 24.03.2012.
Accordingly, the above issues are decided against the
applicant."
5. I completely agree with the aforesaid findings and conclusions
of the Tribunal and the Tribunal has rightly held that there was no untoward
incident not only because the alleged incident is reported after two days to
the police, but also because the brother of the deceased Sanjay did not have
the courage to step into the witness box and face the test of cross-
examination. Also, it is not possible that in a very crowded platform if there
was an accident and the deceased was taken to the hospital, there would be
no report of the railway police or railway officials with respect to an
untoward incident.
FAO 24/2014 Page 4 of 5
6. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the
impugned judgment, and the appeal is therefore dismissed, leaving the
parties to bear their own costs.
APRIL 30, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
