Ramesh vs Union Of India Through General ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 236 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         FAO 455/2012

%                                                    13th January, 2014

RAMESH                                                   ......Appellant
                          Through:       Mr. Anshoman Bal, Advocate.

                          VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA Through General Manager Northern Railway, New
Delhi                                  ...... Respondent
                  Through:   Mr. Amitabh Narender, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

CM Nos. 19052/2012 (delay of 10 days) & 19053/2012 (delay in re-filing)

      For the reasons stated in the application delay in filing and re-filing is

condoned. CMs stand disposed of.

FAO 455/2012

1.    Challenge by means of this first appeal under Section 23 of the

Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is to the impugned judgment of the

Railway Claims Tribunal dated 6.1.2012 by which the claim petition filed by

the appellant herein/ applicant (now deceased and represented through his

legal heirs) before the Railway Claims Tribunal was dismissed.
FAO 455/2012                                                                 Page 1 of 7
 2.    The case of the appellant was that he is entitled to compensation

because he fell down near Sabzi Mandi Delhi from the train while travelling

from Morena Railway Station to Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station, New

Delhi in Dadar Amritsar Express Train at 3.30 A.M. in the morning of

10.2.2011. The case pleaded was that since falling down from the train was

on account of an untoward incident because of heavy rush in the train and

the sudden jerk of the train, the appellant is entitled to compensation. The

further case of the appellant was that when he fell down on account of heavy

rush and sudden jerk at the cabin near Sabzi Mandi Tuglakabad Railway

Station, Delhi, the accident occurred due to negligence of the Railways. The

appellant claimed that he was taken to Jai Prakash Narain Apex Trauma

Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi where he was said to have been in trauma for

more than 20 days. The appellant claims that he was a bona fide passenger

of the Railways and since there was an untoward incident as a result of

which both his legs were amputated, appellant is accordingly entitled to

compensation.

3.    Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition by holding

that neither the appellant was a bona fide passenger and nor the appellant

was injured on account of fall from the train. The Railway Claims Tribunal

has accepted the case of the Railways, and as per which, the appellant was
FAO 455/2012                                                             Page 2 of 7
 not injured on account of a fall from the train. The appellant was in fact

found as per the Railways about 125 meters from the main line from where

the mail/Express/Passenger trains pass and at the line, URD-11 which is a

goods yard line where there is no movement of passenger carrying trains and

only shunting takes place in the yard lines. The case of the Railways was

that the appellant was trying to cross train tracks near the yard line, and his

legs got run over by the train and hence the accident.

4.    The Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition by

giving the following findings:-

(i)   Appellant cannot be said to be a bona fide passenger because the

particulars of the train ticket have been mentioned in the DD No.10B for the

first time on 5.3.2011 although the accident happened more than 20 days

before on 10.2.2011. Further the Railway Claims Tribunal noted that the

train ticket which has been found is not an original railway ticket but only a

photocopy without any explanation being given as to how the appellant had

got with him the photocopy of the ticket and not the original ticket.

      To the above conclusion given by the Railway Claims Tribunal, I

would like to note the fact that the appellant in his cross-examination on

13.9.2011 admitted that though on account of the accident he became

unconscious and yet in the same breath he also stated that police after the
FAO 455/2012                                                                Page 3 of 7
 incident took away the ticket from him. Surely, if the appellant was

unconscious immediately after the accident, there is no question of his

giving the train ticket to the police. Even if we for the sake of arguments

take that the train ticket was given to the police then how can a photocopy be

available with the deceased alongwith the original ticket at the time of

incident for the appellant to have retained the photocopy of the train ticket.

It may be noted that the appellant in his cross-examination had admitted that

he became unconscious because of the accident and got back consciousness

only after two days of the accident.       I would also add the factum of

admission made by the appellant in his cross-examination that he had

travelled from Delhi to Morena (and he fell from the train while returning

back from Morena to Delhi) but he had not purchased any train ticket for

travelling from Delhi to Morena.

(ii)    Railway Claims Tribunal has rightly held that if the appellant actually

had fallen down from a train, then, probability is that his legs would not

have been crushed under the same train in which he was travelling.

(iii)   Appellant is residing in the area of Prahaladpur which is not too far

from the place where the accident took place and therefore he really must

have been crossing the tracks when he met with the accident.


FAO 455/2012                                                                Page 4 of 7
 5.     Therefore, in my opinion, conclusions of the Railway Claims Tribunal

that the appellant was not a bona fide passenger and he did not have a train

ticket cannot be faulted with.

6.     In addition to the above conclusions, and after perusing the trial court

record, I find that the following additional conclusions can be arrived at for

dismissing the claim petition and upholding the judgment dismissing the

claim petition:-

(i)    Appellant who is a labourer states that he left Delhi to meet his

relative at Morena, M.P, however, in the cross-examination he states that he

did not know the name of that relative or the address of that relative. Clearly

the appellant was making out an incredulous story and which additionally

becomes clear from the fact that in the cross-examination he admitted that

his relatives were living in a village at Morena, but, he did not even know

the name of the village where the relatives were living.

(ii)   If the case of the appellant was that his two legs got crushed in the

accident, then, how could he have been found 120 yards away from the main

line which carries the passenger trains, much less because the case of the

appellant was that he had become unconscious immediately after the

accident and which unconsciousness lasted for two days. In the facts such as

the present thus it is unconceivable for a person like the appellant whose legs
FAO 455/2012                                                                Page 5 of 7
 have been crushed in an accident to have been found 120 yards from the

main line taken with the fact that appellant claims that he became

immediately unconscious after the accident.

(iii)          In the trial court there is a report dated 10.2.2011 (Ex.AW1/E)

and which is a report of the guard near the cabin that legs of a person have

been cut and which was near the A cabin of Old Sabzi Mandi Railway

Station i.e the goods yard line as the facts of the case shows.

7.      In view of the above, it is quite clear that the entire case set up by the

appellant is false and that actually the appellant was living near the area

where the accident took place and his legs were not crushed by the train in

which he was allegedly travelling.        Appellant was not travelling in the

passenger train from Morena to Delhi and in fact he was crossing the goods

yard line where he met with an accident with a train and whereby his legs

got crushed. Appellant definitely was not a bona fide passenger and it is

indeed mysterious how a photocopy of a train ticket was with the appellant

instead of the original train ticket and that too when appellant states that he

had become unconscious for two days after the accident, and that the police

had in fact taken away the train ticket from him.      Also, as stated above, the

appellant admitted in the cross-examination that he had not purchased ticket

for travelling from Delhi to Morena and that he does not know the name of
FAO 455/2012                                                                   Page 6 of 7
 the relatives at Morena or the name of the village where the relatives stayed

in Morena.

8.    I bears note that in many cases the whole purpose of creating of the

Railway Claims Tribunal is defeated because the legal process is sought to

be exercised by certain person who file false claims for compensation. This

is one such case. In certain cases, I have imposed costs and in others I have

directed for commencement of proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C so that

there is a lesson to persons filing dishonest claims. However, in the facts of

the present case where the appellant has died and is substituted by his legal

heirs, in view of the circumstances which exist today, I am not imposing any

condition while dismissing the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed,

leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




JANUARY 13, 2014                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib