Raj Bal & Ors. vs Union Of India
2014 Latest Caselaw 1109 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         FAO No. 171/2012

%                                                   3rd March, 2014
RAJ BAL & ORS.                                      ......Appellants
                          Through:       Mr. S.K.Vashistha, Adv.


                          VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA                                           ...... Respondent
                          Through:       Mr. P.K.Dey, Adv.

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

To be referred to the Reporter or not?        YES


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 Tribunal dated

19.12.2011 which has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that though

the death of Sh. Parveen Kumar took place on 1.3.2010 when his body was

found lying on the tracks at Delhi Railway Station, however, the platform

ticket is legally valid only for two hours for purchase from 7.20 pm and the

accident took place at 9.55 PM i.e beyond two hours. Another ground for

dismissing the claim petition is that no evidence has been led which shows

that the deceased died on account of a train accident.

FAO 171/2012                                                                 Page 1 of 6
 2.    The facts of the case as pleaded by the appellants/applicants were that

the deceased Parveen Kumar came to Delhi for his school work from Faruk

Nagar alongwith his maternal uncle. On 1.3.2010, he purchased a platform

ticket no. 47614900 for journey of his maternal uncle who was going to

Khurja and thereafter both of them went to platform no.4 at Delhi Railway

Station. It was further the case of the appellants/applicants that there was a

huge and uncontrolled rush of passengers on the platform and when the New

Delhi EMU train came at platform no.4 then due to thrust from passengers,

the deceased Parveen Kumar got hit and fell down on the railway track

resulting in grievous injuries and died at the spot.


3.    In my opinion, the Railway Claims Tribunal has quite clearly erred in

dismissing the claim petition inasmuch as both the reasons relied upon by

the Tribunal are quite clearly perverse to say the least. Firstly, assuming that

the deceased died at 9.55 PM and the ticket was purchased at 7.20 PM, it

cannot be held that since the platform ticket was valid only for two hours,

the deceased Parveen Kumar after the period of two hours of purchase of the

ticket would become a trespasser. I would have understood a case where

platform ticket was of one day and accident took place on the next date or

thereafter and in which case there would be an issue of a person being a

FAO 171/2012                                                                 Page 2 of 6
 trespasser as the validity of platform ticket is ordinarily for two hours. The

validity only for two hours presumes that all trains in this country run on

time. Surely, this is not so. Therefore, noting that the object of provisions is

to impose a strict liability upon the Railways, hence, Sections 123(c), 124

and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 have to be given a purposive

construction. It may be noted that person holding a valid platform ticket is a

bonafide passenger as per the Explanation to Section 124-A of the Railways

Act, 1989. This Explanation reads as under:-


               "124A. Compensation on account of untoward incident.-
               .......................
               Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "passenger"
               includes-
               (i)    a railway servant on duty; and
               (ii)   a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling
                      by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid
                      platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward
                      incident."


4.    It is further required to be stated that even factually the conclusion of

the Railway Claims Tribunal that the accident happened at 9.55 AM is

unfortunately totally and wholly perverse because there was a statement of

an eye witness being a stall holder on the platform namely Hari Prasad, and


FAO 171/2012                                                                 Page 3 of 6
 whose statement has been filed and proved on record as Ex.AW1/5, and as

per which statement the accident happened at 8.25 PM i.e within two hours

of purchase of the platform ticket. This aspect is further corroborated by the

document Ex.AW1/12 being the document drawn up by the police for

sending of the body to the police mortuary and which mentions the time of

accident as 8.30 P.M. Therefore, it is clear that in fact the train accident in

which the deceased Parveen Kumar died, happened within two hours of the

purchase of the train ticket at 7.20 P.M. i.e the accident happened at 8.25 -30

PM.


5.    Wherever there is a train accident as per Section 124 (equivalent to

old Section 82A), the Railways is liable and it is not and cannot be the case

of the Railways that unless there is a falling from the train, there cannot be a

train accident. In the present case, the deceased was pushed on account of

the rush on the platform to the tracks as a result of which he suffered

grievous injuries and he died and therefore the present is a clear case of a

train accident under Section 124 of the Railways Act.


6.    Even the second conclusion of the Railway Claims Tribunal that there

is no evidence to show that a train accident occurred, is a misconceived

conclusion, because, the statement of the independent eye witness Sh. Hari

FAO 171/2012                                                                 Page 4 of 6
 Parsad as AW1/5 shows that he was working in Stall No. 110 of Platform

no.   4   at      the   Delhi   Railway     Station   and   immediately    after

leaving/passing/crossing of the train he found that the deceased Parveen

Kumar lying dead on the tracks on account of being cut/run over by the

train. This statement when taken with the fact that the appellants/applicants

had led evidence to show that there was a lot of rush of passengers on the

platform, it is clear that deceased Parveen Kumar died because of a train

accident. I would also like to note at this stage that it is not the case of the

respondent-Railways that the death of deceased Parveen Kumar is due to an

act of suicide.


7.    The conclusions of the Railway Claims Tribunal in the present case

are wholly illegal not only because of the documents Ex.AW1/5 and

Ex.AW1/12 as stated above, but also because the respondent-Railways led

no evidence whatsoever before the Tribunal. No witness was examined by

the respondent and even the DRM's report which the respondent/Railways

was permitted to file has not been filed.


8.    In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The claim petition of the

appellants-applicants will stand allowed for the statutory compensation of

Rs.4 lacs alongwith pendente lite and future interest at 7 ½ % per annum

FAO 171/2012                                                                 Page 5 of 6
 simple. Compensation be granted to each of the five applicants in equal

proportion by depositing the amounts payable to them in a nationalized

bank. Bank Manager will ensure that monies after due identification are

received by the applicants only directly in their hands and monies would not

be payable to anyone else such as an agent or attorney etc.




MARCH 03, 2014                               VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib