Union Of India vs Ram Sevak
2014 Latest Caselaw 1083 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  FAO No.461/2012

%                                                    28th February, 2014

UNION OF INDIA                                            ..... Appellant
                          Through:       Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Advocate.

                          Versus


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

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

has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent/claimant, for the

grievous injuries causing amputation of both his legs, suffered on 3.8.2009,

while travelling from Shamli to Saharanpur in a passenger train.

2.           Railway Claims Tribunal holds that the respondent was a

bonafide passenger inasmuch as the ticket was placed on record as Ex.A2.

The Tribunal has reckoned as minor the difference in timings of the train
FAO No.461/2012                                                  Page 1 of 6
 having started from Shamli at 6.00 P.M as claimed by respondent but ticket

having been purchased at 7.40 PM and which finding, in my opinion, is also

justified because certain contradictions in the train timings cannot take away

the factum that there was an 'untoward incident' causing amputation of both

legs of respondent/claimant especially because the so called admission in

cross-examination of respondent stating the timing of 6.PM can also be an

approx timing. The Railway Claims Tribunal has held that the DD entry

which is filed on record in this case as Ex.AW1/3 shows that the applicant

fell down from the train and therefore it cannot be held that the applicant

was run over, when taken with the fact that no evidence was placed on

record by the appellant herein to show that the respondent/applicant was run

over while trespassing. Therefore, holding the respondent/claimant to be a

bonafide passenger who has suffered grievous injuries in an untoward

incident of falling from the train on 3.8.2009 resulting in amputation of both

his legs, the statutory compensation of Rs.4 lacs was granted.

3.           Before me, counsel for the appellant argued the following

aspects:-

(i)   The respondent/claimant in his cross-examination admitted that he in

fact fell down at Shamli where he got injured but since in the claim petition

it is pleaded that the respondent/applicant was injured at Saharanpur, this
FAO No.461/2012                                                  Page 2 of 6
 contradiction is sufficient for dismissing the petition.

(ii)    The train ticket in question is shown to have been purchased at 7.40

P.M. whereas the respondent/applicant claimed that he got up in the train at

Shamli at 6.00 P.M. and therefore it is inconceivable that the ticket is issued

later and the accident happened earlier.

(iii)   Since the respondent/claimant was trying to get into the train and he

fell down because of his own negligence, the appellant would not have any

liability because of the negligent action of the respondent/claimant.

(iv)    Railway Claims Tribunal had no territorial jurisdiction because the

applicant was not living at Delhi.

4.            The first argument raised appeared to have some substance at

the first blush however on a deeper examination, this argument is without

substance because at best the respondent who is a labourer would have got

baffled during his cross-examination to state that he got injured at Shamli

railway station whereas it is otherwise more than abundantly clear on record

that the deceased was found lying in an injured condition of both his legs

crushed at the Saharanpur railway station i.e not at Shamli railway station.

This aspect is re-confirmed by referring to the DRM report, copy of which

has been handed over in the Court today, and which shows that the accident

with respect to the respondent/applicant in fact happened at Saharanpur
FAO No.461/2012                                                  Page 3 of 6
 railway station. Surely, once there is the DD entry Ex.AW1/3 and DRM

report of the appellant itself states that the accident happened at Saharanpur

railway station, therefore merely because the respondent/applicant in his

cross-examination by mistake seems to have stated that he got injured at

Shamli railway station cannot mean that the entire case of the

respondent/applicant should be disbelieved. At best, it will show that the

respondent who is a labourer may have got overawed or confused during

cross-examination, however, documentary evidence showing the accident of

Saharanpur Railway Station will surely prevail over an oral statement made

in cross-examination. I therefore reject the argument that the claim petition

had to be dismissed on account of contradiction emerging of the accident

having happened at Shamli as stated in the cross-examination and not at

Saharanpur railway station as stated in the claim petition.

5.           The second argument which is urged on behalf of the appellant

by referring to the inconsistency in the timings of purchase of ticket at 7.40

P.M. but boarding the train at Shamli at 6.00 P.M. is once again an argument

which has been rightly rejected by the Railway Claims Tribunal because

mere change of timings cannot take away the factum of the DD entry that

the accident to the respondent/claimant was indeed caused at Saharanpur.

More importantly, the DRM report which has been taken by me in the Court
FAO No.461/2012                                                 Page 4 of 6
 today shows that the timing of the accident is about 11.50 PM at night at

Saharanpur railway station i.e later than 7.40 P.M. when the ticket Ex.A2

was purchased.

6.           The next argument which is urged on behalf of the appellant

that the respondent is not entitled to the claim because the respondent was

trying to get up in the train and therefore was guilty of negligence is also an

argument without merits and is fully covered by the judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of Jameela & Ors. Vs. Union of India (2010) 12

SCC 443, and which holds that standing at open doors of a compartment of a

running train even if is a negligent or rash act, however, the same cannot be

a criminal negligence for compensation to be denied under Sections 123(c)

and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. In fact, I would also like to note that

the Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs.

Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 527 has held that

trying to get inside the train is also included in the expression "falling from

the train" as found in Section 123(c) and Section 124-A of the Railways Act,

1989. I would also like to state that there is no evidence led on behalf of the

appellant before the Railway Claims Tribunal of any eye witness that the

respondent/claimant in fact was not pushed out from the train as pleaded by

him but was in fact trying to get up in a running train.
FAO No.461/2012                                                  Page 5 of 6
 7.           The final argument raised on behalf of the appellant that the

respondent/applicant was not living at Delhi is a technical argument

inasmuch     as   Railway     Claims    Tribunal     has   found     that      the

respondent/applicant in his cross-examination admitted that he was residing

at Delhi, and consequently once respondent being a resident of Delhi, Courts

at Delhi would have the territorial jurisdiction. Also no prejudice is pleaded

as caused against the appellant on account of the trial of the case at Delhi.

This argument is also therefore rejected.

8.           In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, and the

same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




FEBRUARY 28, 2014                             VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne