Delhi High Court
Sh. Bihari Shah And Ors. vs Union Of India on 11 February, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 291/2011
% 11th February, 2014
SH. BIHARI SHAH AND ORS. ..... Appellants
Through Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi, Advocate
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 under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal
Act,1987 has been filed by the dependent of the deceased Master Raju
impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated 24.11.2010 dismissing the
claim petition.
2. The Railway Claims Tribunal has held that there was no dispute that
an untoward incident occurred of falling of Master Raju from the train while
travelling from Subzi Mandi to Samaipur Badli on 8.4.2009, and this is
FAO 291/2011 Page 1
expressed in the following conclusion of the Tribunal:-
"Regarding the nature of the incident, there is on record, the evidence of
Sh. Nand Kishore Singh and Sh. Bihari Shah stating that Master Raju fell
down from a moving train. This version is further confirmed in the DRM's
report which has concluded that Master Raju fell down from the running
train due to his own negligence while going to Badli. However, in view of
the fact that the locus standi of the applicants as dependents of the deceased
is in doubt as also the fact that in the Jamatalashi no ticket was recovered
raising doubts regarding the bonafides of Master Raju as a passenger, there is
no option but to dismiss the case."
3. The Tribunal has however dismissed the claim petition essentially on
the ground that no train ticket was found on the person of the deceased and
therefore the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.
4. I cannot agree with the conclusion of the Railway Claims Tribunal
that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger inasmuch as it is not
unknown that a train ticket can be lost in such an untoward incident of
falling from the train more so when the deceased was travelling alone and
not in the company of anyone else. Also, in my opinion, the purchasing of
the train ticket for the deceased Master Raju has been proved by leading of
evidence on behalf of the appellant of one Sh. Nand Kishore Singh, uncle of
the deceased Master Raju, and who deposed as AW-2 that he alongwith
Master Raju came to Subzi Mandi Ghanta Ghar, Delhi for supplying soaps
etc, and he stayed back for pending work but he purchased a ticket with a
sum of Rs.2/- from the Subzi Mandi railway station for the deceased Master
FAO 291/2011 Page 2
Raju for travelling back to Samaipur Badli railway station. Sh. Nand
Kishore Singh was not cross-examined by the respondent. Consequently, in
my opinion, the appellants have discharged the onus upon them of the
deceased Master Raju being a bona fide passenger. It is also relevant to
note that respondent led no evidence in the present case before the Tribunal.
In my opinion, therefore, it is proved that the deceased Master Raju was a
bona fide passenger on the train as the ticket was purchased for him for
travelling from Subzi Mandi to Samaipur Badli.
5. In view of the above, appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment
dated 24.11.2010 and the appellants are held entitled to the statutory
compensation of Rs.4 lacs alongwith interest @ 6% per annum simple from
the date of filing of the petition till the payment. In view of the doubt
expressed by the Tribunal of identity of the appellants, the disbursal of the
compensation shall be made by the respondent, as also the bank where the
compensation amount will be credited, after ensuring the identity of the
appellants as being the parents of the deceased Master Raju.
6. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
FEBRUARY 11, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
godara
FAO 291/2011 Page 3
