Union Of India vs Shri Sohan Lal
2014 Latest Caselaw 816 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         FAO No.509/2012

%                                                    12th February, 2014

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


                          Versus
SHRI SOHAN LAL                                            ..... Respondent
                          Through:       Mr. Navneet Goyal, 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 has been filed by the Railways under Section

23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the

Tribunal dated 5.6.2012 by which the claim petition filed by the respondent

(applicant before the Tribunal) has been allowed and statutory compensation

of Rs.4 lacs granted.

2.           The facts as pleaded in the claim petition were that the deceased

Sh. Gopichand, son of the applicant before the Tribunal (respondent herein),

while travelling from Palwal to Tughlakabad railway station on 24.3.2011

accidentally fell down from the train near the Tughlakabad railway station
FAO No.509/2012                                                 Page 1 of 7
 on account of the fact that there was a heavy rush in the train and he was

pushed from inside by the crowd while the train was approaching the

Tughlakabad station. The fact that the deceased was travelling in the train is

not disputed in the present case.

3.           There are however two issues raised by the appellant herein as

to whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling on a valid train

ticket and whether the deceased died on account of an untoward incident as

per the meaning of the expression under Section 123(c) read with Section

124A of the Railways Act, 1989 or he died on account of his self-inflicted

injuries as he was leaning out of the train and was hit by a signal post.


4.(i) The Tribunal has held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger

because the train ticket was placed and proved as Ex.AW1/11. I may note

that besides the finding of train ticket in the record of the Railway Claims

Tribunal, there is a document filed by the appellant itself as R2 and which is

a certificate from Palwal Station that the ticket in question was validly

issued from the Palwal railway station. Thus, the deceased was travelling

from Palwal to Tughlakabad on this valid ticket.


(ii)         Counsel for the appellant argued that the deceased Sh.

Gopichand was not a bonafide passenger travelling on a valid train ticket

FAO No.509/2012                                                   Page 2 of 7
 and train ticket was planted and that this allegedly becomes clear from the

report prepared by one Sh. Parmeshwar Dayal, ASI on the date of the

accident that one Sh. Shravan Kumar, the co-passenger informed that from

the purse of the deceased Sh. Gopichand no ticket was recovered.


(iii)        I cannot agree with the argument urged on behalf of the

appellant that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger inasmuch as the

report which is relied upon, besides not being proved and exhibited before

the Tribunal, even if the same is taken as correct, the same is to be rejected

because the same is completely against the actual facts inasmuch as Sh.

Shravan Kumar was not a co-passenger, but he was the brother of the

deceased who had gone to the hospital after the accident. The statement of

Sh. Shravan Kumar, brother of the deceased Sh. Gopichand has been filed

and proved on record as Ex.AW1/7 and which states that the hospital

authorities gave a ticket and visiting card of the deceased Sh. Gopichand to

him/Shravan Kumar. This statement of Sh. Shravan Kumar is specifically

recorded vide DD No.18A on the same date of the accident and has been

proved as Ex.AW1/7 as already stated above.         The co-passenger of the

deceased Gopichand was actually the deceased's cousin brother Sh. Ram

Kishan and whose statement has been filed and proved on record as

FAO No.509/2012                                                 Page 3 of 7
 Ex.AW1/6. In this statement, Ex.AW1/6 of co-passenger Sh. Ram Kishan, it

is specifically stated by Sh. Ram Kishan that both he and the deceased Sh.

Gopichand separately purchased tickets of Rs.6/- each for travelling from

Palwal railway station to Tughkalabad railway station for getting jobs of a

security guard through their uncle who was employed in the same field.

Therefore taking on record the statement of Sh. Ram Kishan as Ex.AW1/6,

of Sh. Shravan Kumar Ex.AW1/7, the ticket filed and proved on record as

Ex.AW1/11 and finally the document R2 filed by the appellant itself that the

ticket was validly issued from Palwal railway station, it is clear that the

deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling on a valid train ticket.

5(i)         The next issue is as to whether the deceased Sh. Gopichand

died on account of self-inflicted injuries on account of his leaning out from

the train and being hit by the signal post or he was in fact pushed out from

the train by other passengers in the over crowded train.

(ii)         In this regard, the Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased in

fact fell down from the train and not that he was leaning out from the train.

The conclusion of the Tribunal, in my opinion, can be substantiated from the

various documents and facts as stated hereinafter.

6.           Firstly the witness of the appellant RW1 Sh. Rakesh Kumar,

and who was a guard on the train, specifically admitted that there was a
FAO No.509/2012                                                  Page 4 of 7
 heavy rush in the train and he saw the deceased being hit by the signal post.

However, it bears note that whether the deceased was hit by the signal post

on account of being pushed by the crowd in the train was not in the personal

knowledge of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, RW1. In fact, the case of the applicant

before the Tribunal is more believable because the aforesaid guard Sh.

Rakesh Kumar in his statement filed as Ex.RW1/1 admits that on his seeing

deceased Sh. Gopichand being hit by the signal post he stopped the train,

however, by the time the train stopped it had reached platform no.2 of

Tughlakabad railway station, thus meaning thereby that the train which was

over crowded with passengers was nearing the station and it is natural at

such point of time that there would be considerable movement and pushing

in the train, and therefore the deceased Sh. Gopichand no doubt may have

been hit by the signal post, but, that would be on account of his being pushed

from inside of the train and therefore falling from the train and not because

deceased was leaning out from the train.

7            Secondly, the deceased was travelling with one Sh. Ram

Kishan, his cousin brother and whose statement has been recorded as

Ex.AW1/4 on the same date of the accident in DD No.18A and as per which

it is specifically stated by this witness who is an eye witness that the

deceased Sh. Gopichand was pushed from inside of the train on account of
FAO No.509/2012                                                 Page 5 of 7
 the heavy rush in the train. Accordingly, in my opinion, the respondent

herein had discharged the onus of proof of the deceased Gopichand having

in fact been pushed out of the train by the crowd while the station at

Tughlakabad was being reached and therefore deceased cannot be said to

have died on account of self-inflicted injuries or his own criminal negligence

and only in which cases the Railways/appellant are exempted from liability.

8.           In this regard, one is again reminded by the observations made

by the Supreme Court in the judgments of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran

Vijaya Kumar & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 527 and Jameela and Ors. Vs. Union

of India (2010) 12 SCC 443 that liability of the Railways is a strict liability

under Sections 123(c) and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 and accidental

falling while standing near the door of a train should not be held to be on

account of his own criminal negligence. In Indian circumstances on Indian

Railways where admittedly there is over-crowding and falling from such a

train, even if that is on account of negligence, the same cannot be a ground

to deny statutory compensation in terms of liability on the Railways by

Sections 123 (c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

9.           I may finally add that counsel for the appellant had argued that

deceased was travelling in the vendor van and not in the normal coach,

however, once again this argument will not entitle the Railways to be
FAO No.509/2012                                                  Page 6 of 7
 discharged from their liability when trains are over-crowded, passengers do

stand in the vendor van and standing in vendor van for travelling is not such

a negligence for the statutory compensation not to be granted once the

bonafide passenger dies in an untoward incident by falling from a train.

10.          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 12, 2014                             VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne