Delhi High Court
Komal Singh & Anr. vs Union Of India on 26 February, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 501/2011
% 26th February, 2014
KOMAL SINGH & ANR. ......Appellant
Through: None.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA ...... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. In this appeal on the last date of hearing adjournment was sought on
behalf of the appellants, and which was granted subject to deposit of costs of
Rs.1000/- with the Delhi High Court Legal Aid Services Committee. Neither
costs have been deposited nor is anyone present for the appellants.
2. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 19.7.2011 by
which the Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition by
holding that there was no untoward incident as per the meaning of that
expression in Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act,
FAO 501/2011 Page 1 of 5
1989 causing the death of the boy Sh. Veerpal , son of the appellants, on
19.2.2009, and that in fact the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, he did
not fall out of the train, and that he died at the time of crossing the railway
tracks.
3. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in this regard are contained
in the following findings/conclusions of the Tribunal in the judgment dated
19.7.2011 and the same are as follows:-
"Hence, it is clear that the applicants miserably failed to prove the
untoward incident & the documents placed on record on behalf of
the applicants do not prove the untoward incident. The alleged eye
witness AW2 Sh. Dharender is not a reliable trustworthy witness
because AW2, in his cross examination admitted that the deceased
was not known to him and the ticket for his journey on 19.2.2009
was not available with him as the same was taken by the TTE in the
Police Chowki, when he went to the police station for giving
information to the police. But no such information of Sh. Dharender,
was available on the police record & there was also no reference of
the aforesaid witness in the police investigation. The statement of
eyewitness Const. Sehdev Singh, RPF Hazrat Nizamuddin was
recovered by the police during investigation, wherein it is mentioned
that a boy, while crossing the railway track at about 4 p.m on
19.02.2009 from platform no.2, was run over by EMU train and the
duty hours of const. Sehdev Singh was from 8 AM to 8 PM on
19.2.2009 at the platform and the above statement, recorded by the
police was not rebutted/challenged by the applicants, when copy of
DRM report alongwith other documents, including the statement of
Const. Sehdev Singh were supplied to the ld. Counsel for the
applicants. These documents were prepared in the ordinary course
of duties by the Govt. officials and the veracity of the documents,
FAO 501/2011 Page 2 of 5
cannot be doubted. Hence, it is clear that the alleged incident
occurred, while the deceased was crossing the railway track from
plaintiff no.2 at about 4 PM on 19.2.2009 & he was run over by EMU
train and the present case falls under the exceptions of section 124-
A of the Railway Act and for that Railway Administration is not
responsible. I also observe that no journey ticket was recovered
either from the possession of the deceased or from the site of the
incident and in this regard I find momentum of force when the Ld.
Counsel for the respondent states that the story put forth by the
applicants, is a mere concoction only to get false compensation and
now a days, it is a simple tendency of the some people by adopting
other means by quoting that the deceased was travelling, on the
strength of valid railway journey ticket and the ticket lost in the
incident. However, the legal position of law is very much clear as it
has been held in Dinesh Kumar Singh Maurya Vs Union of India,
vide FAO no.1023 of 2010, decided on 28.8.2010 by the Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), wherein it is observed as
under:-
"True, may be in certain cases the ticket of bonafide
passenger is lost, snatched or taken away by some criminal
and unscrupulous persons but there cannot be a presumption
that the ticket of every deceased necessarily is taken out or it
is lost or mutilated. In case ticket is not found from the body of
the deceased or form its vicinity, the presumption would be
that such a person was not a bonafide traveller, of course,
evidence can be led to prove otherwise. If any untoward
incident takes place within the meaning of Section 124-A of
the Railways Act, initial burden lies on the Railways to prove
that the passenger was not a bonafide passenger, but the
same having been discharged, onus shifts on the person
claiming compensation, to establish by some believable
evidence, that such a passenger was a bonafide passenger,
moreso when contrary admissible evidence is produced by the
Railways."
FAO 501/2011 Page 3 of 5
The authority titled (supra) is applicable in the present case. I
find momentum of force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the
respondent and there is no modicum of merit in the submissions of
Ld. Counsel for the applicants. The authorities submitted by Ld.
Counsel for the applicants, is not applicable in the present case as
the facts are different.
Hence, I record my findings on Issue no.1 & 2 against the
applicants and in favour of the respondent."
4. The Railway Claims Tribunal has rightly held that in none of the
documents which were filed and proved on record it was shown that the
deceased died on account of a fall from the train. In fact, the statement of
Sehdev Singh, the railway police constable at Hazrat Nizamuddin was
recorded and which showed that the deceased died while crossing the
railways tracks. Admittedly, no ticket was recovered in Jamatalashi/search
of the deceased. Railway Claims Tribunal has held that the official acts
which are performed by government servants have a presumption of
correctness and which would be so in terms of Section 114 of the Evidence
Act, 1872. The official acts have therefore to be believed in the facts of the
present case. I completely agree with the findings and conclusions of the
Railway Claims Tribunal which in fact notes that there is a tendency now a
days by putting forth a concocting story for getting the statutory
compensation of Rs. 4 lacs.
FAO 501/2011 Page 4 of 5
5. In view of the above, though the appeal is dismissed, considering that
the process of law has been misused in this case, I fix the case before the
Registrar General for conducting an enquiry under Section 340 Cr. P.C
against the appellants as also any other co-conspirators or abetors who can
be said to be guilty as per criminal laws, in filing of the false case before this
Court including filing of false affidavits and also of filing of the false cases
before the Tribunal and leading false evidence and filing false affidavits
before the Railway Claims Tribunal. The Registrar General after completing
the necessary enquiry within a period of four months will give a report to
this Court and list the matter in Court.
6. List before the Registrar General on 18th March, 2014. Copy of this
judgment be sent to the Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal so that the same
is prominently displayed in different notice boards of the Railway Claims
Tribunal for the next six months so that hopefully the frivolous and false
cases are not filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal.
FEBRUARY 26, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
