Delhi High Court
Soni Devi & Ors. vs Union Of India on 17 February, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 406/2010
% 17th February, 2014
SONI DEVI & ORS. ......Appellants
Through: Mr. S.K.Vashistha, Adv.
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)
1. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal
dated 18.8.2010 which has dismissed the claim petition.
2. The claim petition was filed by the appellants, applicants before the
Railway Claims Tribunal, as dependants of the deceased Sh. Sanjeev Das,
who died in an untoward incident on 8.6.2009 by falling from the train while
travelling from Rathdhana to Holambi Kalan.
3. The Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the petition by making
the following observations:-
FAO 406/2010 Page 1 of 6
"Regarding Issue Nos 2,3 & 4
These issues are clubbed together for the sake of
convenience, and also because they are inter-related. The
applicant have placed on record the ticket valid from Rathdhana
to Holambi Kalan (AW1/8). There is also on record the
Jamatalashi Report (AW1/9) which shows that two tickets, one
from Rathdhana to Holambi Kalan and another from Holambi
Kalan to Rathdhana were recovered from the body of the
deceased. However, the respondent's counsel has argued that
although two tickets were available in the pocket of Sh. Sanjeev
Das, there is no mention of the train by which he was travelling
and that his death was not due to fall from a train but on
account of being run over by a train.
Regarding the nature of the incident, to prove that Sh.
Sanjeev Dass has fallen from the train, the applicants' counsel
has drawn attention of the court to the statement of Sh. Akash
(AW1/5) in which he has stated that the death of Sh. Sanjeev
Das was due to fall from a train. However, as rightly pointed
out by the Learned Counsel for respondent, the evidence of Sh.
Akash cannot be accepted at fact value as he is the brother of
Sh. Sanjeev Das and was also not a witness to the incident.
Most significant is the police report (AW1/7) in which it run
over by some train. It is also significant that the police in the
"Brief facts" (AW1/3) has observed that due to being run over,
the body of Sh. Sanjeev Das was cut into several pieces. A run
over incident would result in complete mutilation of the body of
the victim as in this case. The evidence on record clearly points
to the fact that Sh. Sanjeev Das was run over by a train and that
he was not a victim of an untoward incident. This issue is
accordingly decided in favour of the respondent and against the
applicant.
Since the evidence on record clearly proves that this is
not the case of an untoward incident but it is a case of run over,
the present claim application stands dismissed.
FAO 406/2010 Page 2 of 6
In the result, therefore, the claim application filed by the
applicant is dismissed. There are, however, no orders as to
costs."
4. In my opinion, the Railway Claims Tribunal has clearly gone off on a
tangent although sufficient evidence was available before the Tribunal which
showed that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, and he fell down from
the train. The following facts emerge from the record and which persuade
me to allow this appeal and therefore, the claim petition:-
(i) It is during the jamatalashi of the deceased Sh. Sanjeev Das that
tickets were recovered for both to and fro journey clearly showing that the
deceased was a bonafide passenger.
(ii) The body of the deceased, badly cut up, was found on the tracks at
K.M.P No. 22/4 and 24/6, which is at a place in between the journey from
Rathdhana to Holambi Kalan, and the only way in which the deceased could
have been found there was if he had fallen down from the train inasmuch as
an undisputed position which emerges on record is that the deceased was not
living anywhere near the place where his body was found.
(iii) The Tribunal has erred in observing that if the deceased was
found dead on account of being badly cut up, it would be only on account of
FAO 406/2010 Page 3 of 6
his being run over by another train, inasmuch as, it is perfectly possible on
many occasions that if the deceased gets entangled in the steps of the train
while falling down from the train, he can come under the same train in
which he was travelling. In the facts of the present case, once a valid
journey ticket is found not only for the journey from Rathdhana to Holambi
Kalan, but also a valid journey ticket for the return journey and the
deceased's body is found at a place which is in between the point of
commencement of journey and the point of destination, in the facts of this
case the same is proved to be on account of death of the deceased by falling
from the train.
5. I may note that the liability of the Railways is a strict liability as per
Section 123(c) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 and as so
held by the Supreme Court in the judgments in the cases 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.
6. I may note that the respondent/Railways have led no evidence
whatsoever, much less of an eye witness, that the deceased Sh. Sanjeev Das
was run over by another train and that he did not fall from the train in which
he was travelling. It bears mention that as per the documents prepared by
FAO 406/2010 Page 4 of 6
the police authorities, and the railways authorities which have been filed as
Ex. AW1/3, Ex.AW1/7 and Ex.AW1/9, it becomes clear that the deceased
died on account of fall from the train, and which is because his body was
recognized at the KMP No. 22/4 and 22/6 by the brother of the deceased Sh.
Akash Kumar.
7. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed by setting aside of the
impugned judgment dated 18.8.2010. Appellants will be entitled to statutory
compensation of Rs.4 lacs alongwith interest at 7 ½ % p.a. simple from the
date of filing of the petition till the date of payment. Payments which have to
be made to the appellants will be in the proportion of 25% each for each of
the four appellants. So far as appellant nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, and who
are minors, the amount which will fall to their share shall be deposited in
fixed deposits in a Nationalized Bank and only the interest of those fixed
deposits will be withdrawn and utilized by the appellant no.1 for the up-keep
and maintenance of the minors/appellants 2 to 4. In case, there is an
important necessity for encashment of the whole or part of the principal
amount, on such a necessity being proved before the Railway Claims
Tribunal by filing of an application, the Railway Claims Tribunal may allow
withdrawal of the principal amount, to the extent required. The amounts of
FAO 406/2010 Page 5 of 6
the appellants no. 2 to 4 on being deposited in a Nationalized Bank, the
concerned authorities including the Manager of the Bank will ensure that the
payments are released only on identity being proved of the appellant no.1
and also only in the hands of the appellant no.1, in terms of the present
judgment.
8. Appeal is accordingly allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own
costs.
FEBRUARY 17, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
