Delhi High Court
Ram Sajiwan Saroj vs Union Of India on 16 December, 2014
Author: A. K. Pathak
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 2/2012
Decided on 16th December, 2014
RAM SAJIWAN SAROJ ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Rajeshwar Singh and Mr. Deepak
Sagar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
A.K.PATHAK, J.(ORAL)
1. Claim application filed by the appellant seeking compensation of `10
lacs under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 („the Act‟, for short),
has been dismissed by the Railway Claim Tribunal, vide order dated
16.08.2011. Aggrieved by this order the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. Appellant alleged in the claim application that he boarded
Gorakhdham Express at Shakurbasti Railway Station for going to Amethi in
Uttar Pradesh on 15.09.2009 after purchasing a valid ticket. Due to the
sudden jerk of the train, he fell down from train at the platform itself and his
left leg was amputated at Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital where he was taken
for treatment after the incident.
3. Respondent disputed the above facts. Respondent alleged that
appellant was not a bona fide passenger of the said train. He did not suffer
injuries in any "untoward incident", within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2)
of the Act. Appellant sustained injuries due to his own negligence,
carelessness and wrong acts. Thus, the respondent is not liable to pay any
compensation under Section 124-A of the Act. It was prayed that claim
application be dismissed.
4. Following issues were framed by the Tribunal:-
"(1) Whether the injured Shri Ram Sajiwan Saroj, S/o
Shri Muneshwar Prasad, was a bona fide passenger of
Gorakhdham Express Train from Shakurbasti
Railway Station to Amethi, as on 15.09.2009?
(2) Whether the applicant has received injuries in an
untoward incident as alleged in the claim application?
If so, what effect?
(3) What were the nature of injuries suffered by the
applicant?
(4) To what amount of compensation, if any, is the
applicant injured entitled?
(5) Relief?"
5. Both the parties lead evidence. The appellant examined himself as
AW1. As against this, respondent examined the Station Master of
Shakurbasti Railway Station, namely, Sh. Shashank Srivastava as RW-1.
Extract of "Untoward Incident Register" and map of Shakurbasti Railway
Station were also placed on record and proved as Ex.R1/1 and R1/2
respectively.
6. Upon scrutiny of evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal has
concluded that appellant had failed to prove that he fell down from the
Gorakhdham Express at Shakurbasti Railway Station resulting in amputation
of his leg. Tribunal also observed that the ticket recovered from the
appellant was a second class general ticket and was not sufficient to prove
that appellant was travelling in Gorakhdham Express. By placing reliance
on Ex.R1/1 and ExR1/2, the Tribunal has held that Gorakhdham Express
train departed at 20:16 hrs on 15.09.2009 from Platform No.1, Line No.1 of
Shakurbasi Railway Station; whereas appellant was found lying near water
cooler of Platform No.3, Line No.4 at 2.30 hrs. on 16.09.2009, that is, after
about 6 hrs of the departure of „Gorakhdham Express‟ from platform No.1.
It was not possible for the incident to have remained unnoticed for 6 hrs,that
too, at the platform where number of persons remain present. It was further
observed that the circumstances suggested that appellant might have been
run over by some train while crossing the railway tracks.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
Tribunal‟s record and do not find any perversity or illegality in the view
taken by the Tribunal. The case of the appellant as set up in the claim
application and his deposition is that he boarded Gorakhdham Express at
Shakurbasti Railway Station but due to the heavy rush, he was at the gate of
compartment on account of heavy rush. Due to the sudden jerk, he fell
down from the train before the train could cross the platform and sustained
injuries. He fell unconscious and was removed to hospital. This version of
his is highly suspicious and doubtful in view of the fact that Gorakhdham
Express departed from Platform No.1 at 20:16 hrs (8.16 p.m.) when he
allegedly fell down from the train at the platform itself; meaning thereby,
according to him, incident took place on 8.16 p.m. However, he was first
noticed lying near the water cooler of Platform No.3, Line No.4 of the
station which is away from platform No.1. However, he was found lying at
Line No.4 near water cooler of platform no.3 at 2.30 a.m., that is, after 6 hrs
of the alleged fall from the train. It is highly improbable that incident could
have remained unnoticed for nearly 6 hrs, that too, at the platform where
public person besides the police officials and railway employees remain
present all the time. It is not the case that he had fallen from the train at odd
hours and at some isolated place where of his remaining unnoticed were
possible. The circumstances indicate that the appellant might have been run
over by some train passing through Line No.4 while crossing the tracks.
Recovery of second class general ticket, by itself, is not sufficient to show
that the appellant was travelling in Gorakhdham Express.
8. Cases of run over by crossing the railway line would not fall within
the ambit and scope of „untoward incident‟ as defined in Section 123(c) (2)
of the Act, which envisages that accidental falling of any passenger from a
train carrying passengers amounts to „untoward incident‟. Section 124-A of
the said Act provides compensation to the victims of „untoward incidents‟.
Proviso to Section 124-A further envisages that no compensation shall be
payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies
or suffers injury due to (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him; (b) self-
inflicted injury; (c) his own criminal act; (d) any act committed by him in a
state of intoxication or insanity; (e) any natural cause or disease or medical
or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury
caused by the said „untoward incident‟. In this case, since appellant had
failed to prove that he sustained injuries in an untoward incident, therefore,
Tribunal has rightly held that he was not entitled to any compensation.
9. Appeal is dismissed.
A.K. PATHAK, J
DECEMBER 16, 2014
RB
