Delhi High Court
Jaimala & Ors. vs Union Of India on 10 February, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 46/2014
% 10th February, 2014
JAIMALA & ORS. ......Appellants
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar Rajput, Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA ...... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
CM No.2608/2014 (delay in refiling)
1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned. CM
stands disposed of.
FAO No.46/2014
2. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987 against the impugned judgment dated 10.7.2013 which
has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants who are the parents
of the deceased person Sh. Love Kumar.
FAO 46/2014 Page 1 of 5
3. The facts as pleaded by the appellants was that their son Sh. Love
Kumar died on 9.8.2011 in an 'untoward incident' as per Section 123(c) read
with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. It is stated that on 9.8.2011,
at about 4 PM in the evening, the deceased had left home for going to
Tuglakabad to meet his friends and stated that he would come back. It was
further pleaded that the deceased left home with his friends Rahul and Lala
and in their presence, purchased a ticket for travel from Tuglakabad to
Faridabad and they boarded an EMU train to reach Faridabad. It is then
pleaded that as there was a heavy rush in the compartment and deceased was
standing near the entrance gate, on account of heavy jerk of the train, the
deceased fell down from the moving train between Tuglakabad and
Faridabad railway stations and died due to injuries sustained by the fall. The
deceased was found on the railway tracks by a RPF constable. The
appellants thus filed the claim petition claiming the statutory compensation
of Rs. 4 lacs.
4. The Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition giving
the following conclusions:-
FAO 46/2014 Page 2 of 5
(i) The deceased was not a bonafide passenger. No train ticket was
recovered from the person of the deceased and nor was any train ticket
purchased and was filed and proved in the proceedings.
(ii) The residence of the deceased, who was living with the appellants,
was not too far away from the railway tracks and therefore, the deceased did
not die on account of fall from the train, but would have been injured while
crossing the tracks or was run over by a train.
(iii) The so called co-passengers, being friends of the deceased, namely
Rahul and Lala were not examined, and who have been the best person to
show the purchase of the ticket and also the consequent travel of the
deceased on the train.
5. Before me, counsel for the appellants argued that the deceased should
be taken as a bonafide passenger even if no train ticket was found in the
Jamatalashi report (Ex.AW1/6), inasmuch as, it is not unknown that the train
ticket gets lost in an 'untoward incident'. It is also argued that admittedly
the body of the deceased was found on the railway tracks and therefore, the
deceased would have been injured on account of falling from a train. It is
further argued that the deceased was taken by the appellants to their
residence as he was alive after he was found on the tracks and consequently
FAO 46/2014 Page 3 of 5
the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and it he held that Love
Kumar died in an untoward incident.
6. I cannot agree with the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants.
No doubt, it is possible that in many cases, a train ticket is not recovered
after the accident, but whether or not a person was a bonafide passenger
travelling on a train, is to be proved before the Railway Claims Tribunal on
the principle of preponderance of probabilities like in a civil case. In the
present case, on a totality of circumstances, including the aspect of friends of
the deceased namely Rahul and Lala not having been examined, in my
opinion, the Railway Claims Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any
illegality in holding that the deceased had not purchased a ticket and was not
a bonafide passenger. Further, the issue of a ticket having been purchased
would be relevant, if otherwise, the falling of the deceased from the train
was established, but I find that it has not been established that the deceased
was travelling in a train inasmuch as, merely because the body is found on
the tracks does not ipso facto mean that the person had fallen down from a
moving train. In order to establish that the body which is found on tracks
was on account of a fall from the train, it was necessary to show that the
deceased was in fact travelling on the train. The conclusions of the Railway
FAO 46/2014 Page 4 of 5
Claims Tribunal cannot be faulted with that the deceased has not been
proved to be travelling on a train more so because the residence of the
deceased is not too far away from the tracks where his body was found.
7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the appeal, and the
same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
FEBRUARY 10, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
