Rekha Devi & Ors vs Union Of India
2014 Latest Caselaw 749 Del

$~11
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      FAO 12/2012
                                                10th February, 2014
       REKHA DEVI & ORS                                    ..... Appellant
                          Through:     Mr.S.S.Sisodia, Adv.
                          versus
       UNION OF INDIA                                      ..... Respondent

                          Through:     Dr.Ashwani Bhardwaj, 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 u/S 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,

1987 is filed by the appellants against the judgment of the Railway

Claims Tribunal dated 14.10.2011 which has dismissed the claim

petition.

2. The case of the appellants, and who were the applicants before

the Railway Claims Tribunal, was that the deceased Mukesh Kumar,

husband of applicant no.1 and the father of the applicants no.2 to 4

and son of applicants no.5 and 6, died on account of untoward

incident of falling from the train on 23.10.2009. It was pleaded that

the deceased was a resident of Khekra in District Baghpat (UP) and

was aged about 32 years at the time of the incident. The deceased

Mukesh Kumar was stated to have been travelling for his work of

making switches on contract at Shahdara in Delhi from his residence

in Khekra. It is pleaded that deceased Mukesh Kumar was

accompanied by his brother Ravinder and both of them after

purchasing two tickets boarded Passenger Train No.4-SD at about

5.30 a.m. The train was stated to be crowded and on account of a

certain jerk of the train, the deceased Mukesh Kumar fell down from

the train and sustained injuries on his person at Khekra Railway

Station, and which led to his death on the same date i.e 23.10.2009.

Claim petition was accordingly filed claiming the statutory

compensation totaling to Rs.10 lakhs.

3. The Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition

by arriving at the following findings/conclusions:

(i) The deceased Mukesh Kumar cannot be said to be a bona fide

passenger, although a train ticket was filed and proved as Ex.

AW1/10, inasmuch as, if the deceased was really travelling in the

train along with his brother Ravinder, the train ticket of the brother

Ravinder should have been produced, but which was not produced.

(ii) Deceased was in fact strolling along with other persons near

the railway station Khekra near which he was living and he got hit by

the train during his strolling near the railway station.

(iii) It is difficult to believe that the deceased was travelling in the

train along with his brother Ravinder, inasmuch as, the information

with regard to the incident was given to the applicants not by the

deceased's brother Ravinder, but admittedly by some persons in the

locality as admitted by the applicant no.1 in her cross-examination. If

the deceased was travelling with his brother then surely it is the said

Ravinder who would have first informed the appellants/applicants and

not the residents of the colony, and which normally happens when

nobody was with the deceased.

(iv) The deceased Mukesh Kumar was working to manufacture

switches at a location in Shahdara, Delhi and it does not sound

reasonable for the deceased to leave his residence at Khekra at 5.30 in

the morning when the time to travel to Shahdara in Delhi is just about

45 minutes, and which indicated that the deceased was actually not

travelling in the train because no factory/work commences at 6.30 in

the morning.

4. In addition to the above said reasons the Tribunal has

relied upon the newspaper report of a local newspaper that the

deceased Mukesh Kumar died on account of having been hit by train

while strolling in the morning with other persons. Of course, I must

state that newspaper reports cannot be believed because the content of

any report has necessarily to be proved in accordance with law and a

news report is not taken as proof of the contents of the report.

5. Counsel for the appellants has argued before this Court that the

deceased Mukesh Kumar was a bona fide passenger inasmuch as a

train ticket was filed and which was given to the father Shri

Dharampal, Ex. AW1/1 in the hospital, therefore the findings of the

Tribunal of the deceased Mukesh Kumar not being a bona fide

passenger is illegal.

In my opinion, the argument urged on behalf of the appellants

does not merit acceptance inasmuch as the Tribunal has rightly

rejected the evidence in the form of train ticket Ex. AW1/10 has relied

upon because of the fact that no train ticket has been filed of the

brother Shri Ravinder who was said to have been travelling with the

deceased Mukesh Kumar. A civil case is decided on balance of

probabilities and considering the specific case that Ravinder was

travelling with the deceased, in my opinion, the Tribunal has rightly

along with other circumstances come to a finding of fact that mere

filing of the train ticket allegedly to be of the deceased would not

prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the train in the

facts of this case.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants next argued that the Tribunal

has wrongly relied upon the newspaper report to which I agree, but

that would not make any difference to the conclusions arrived at by

the Railway Claims Tribunal as stated above inasmuch as various

aspects and facts have been considered by the Tribunal to hold that

the deceased in fact did not fall down from a running train but died on

account of his strolling near the railway tracks at Khekra and where

the residence of the deceased was.

7. To the above aspects I would like to add that the

respondent/Railways led the evidence of the guard of the train Shri

M.L.Gupta and the station superintendent Shri Ram Singh, as RW-1

and RW-3, and both of whom deposed to the fact that no incident of

the falling from the train of any person was reported on 23.10.2009

when the deceased Mukesh Kumar is said to have fallen down from

the train, and I would agree to such deposition because there is no

reason why an employee of the Railways in the present case would

give a false statement of not falling down from the train of the

deceased Mukesh Kumar on 23.10.2009.

8. I agree with the conclusions of the Railway Claims Tribunal

except with respect to relying upon the newspaper report, and in my

opinion therefore, the present appeal has no merit, and the same is

dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

       FEBRUARY 10, 2014/mm                     VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J