Union Of India vs Devki Devi & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 1214 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  FAO No.26/2013

%                                                    6th March, 2014

UNION OF INDIA                                           ..... Appellant
                          Through:       Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate.

                          Versus


DEVKI DEVI & ORS.                                          ..... Respondents
                          Through:       Ms. Rupika Singh, 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 is filed by the Railways against the judgment

of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 30.8.2012 allowing the claim petition

filed by the respondents herein.


2.           The facts as pleaded by the respondents were that the deceased

Gian Chand on 18.7.2009 after purchasing a valid ticket bearing

no.04460956 was travelling from Delhi Junction to Muradabad by the Delhi

Barrely Passenger train. It was further pleaded that during the course of

travelling when the train reached between Pilkhua and Hapur, Sh. Gian

FAO No.26/2013                                                  Page 1 of 5
 Chand fell down from the train and received serious injuries which resulted

in his death. The deceased was admitted to Saraswati Medical Hospital and

thereafter transferred to M.M.G. Hospital, Ghaziabad where he succumbed

to his injuries on 25.7.2009 about a week after the alleged untoward

incident.

3.           The Tribunal has held that the deceased was a bonafide

passenger because the ticket was filed and proved as Ex.A8 and that the

report of the Investigating Officer Akhilesh Kumar (RW1), Inspector, S.I.B.

ought not to be believed because the Investigating Officer personally did not

go to the hospital etc to carry out investigation.

4.           Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the deceased was

not a bonafide passenger inasmuch as the train ticket was procured only for

the purpose of filing the claim petition. It is also argued that the deceased

did not die in an untoward incident on account of a fall from a train and the

accident was in fact a road accident as per the documents filed before the

Tribunal and a false claim petition has been filed to claim the statutory

compensation of Rs.4 lacs.

5.           Learned counsel for the respondents refuted the arguments

urged on behalf of the appellant and relied upon the conclusions of the

Railway Claims Tribunal.
FAO No.26/2013                                                Page 2 of 5
 6.           In my opinion, the arguments urged on behalf of the appellant

need to be accepted for the reasons stated hereinafter.

7.           Firstly, the date of the untoward incident is 18.7.2009 and death

is stated to have happened on 25.7.2009 and in this entire period it is the

undisputed case emerging on record that the deceased was not contacted by

any of his family members and the statements of family members are

recorded only after the death of the deceased on 25.7.2009. This aspect is

relevant because there is a crucial issue in this case as to whether at all an

untoward incident happened in the railway premises for compensation to be

granted. In dozens and dozens of cases which have come up before this

Court whenever there is an incident in the railway premises there is at least

one document whether a DD or a police enquiry report or a station master's

report or a noting of the guard of the train or another employee of the

Railways that an incident has happened in railway premises. In the present

case, there is not a single document to suggest that there is any incident

which happened on the railway premises i.e at railway tracks or the railway

platform or any other portion of the railway property. The onus of proof was

on the respondents/claimants to show at least by some minimum possible

evidence that the deceased died on account of falling from the train,

however, this onus is not discharged because admittedly there is no
FAO No.26/2013                                                 Page 3 of 5
 document that the deceased died in the railway premises and neither is there

any eye-witness nor a co-passenger who has stated of death of Sh. Gian

Chand on railway property, much less by falling from a train. On the

contrary, as per an endorsement in the hospital record, there is a mention of

'RTA' and which refers to and is an abbreviation for Road Traffic Accident.

The Tribunal has most unfortunately ignored this aspect on the ground that

this could be routinely written and because the Investigating Officer, namely

Akhilesh Kumar, Inspector, S.I.B. did not go to the spot or the hospital for

personal enquiries.

8.           It also requires to be noted in the present case that how has an

original train ticket been filed by the respondents in this case because there

is no document that the ticket was handed over to the respondents either by

the police authorities or the hospital authorities or that the same was

recovered in the jamatalashi/search of the person of the deceased. One ticket

has miraculously appeared and which surely is only a miracle because

admittedly the deceased was travelling alone and the family members came

to know of the death of the deceased many days after the alleged untoward

incident on 18.7.2009. Therefore, it is clear that the ticket which has been

filed and placed on record as Ex.A8 is a procured ticket inasmuch as the

same is only a general ticket of the date of the incident, and there is no
FAO No.26/2013                                                 Page 4 of 5
 explanation given as to how the respondents have come into possession of

this train ticket which was allegedly with the deceased Sh. Gian Chand.

9.           In view of the above, it is clear that no accident happened in the

railway premises. The accident was in fact a road traffic accident as found

from the expression 'RTA' in the hospital records and the DRM's report.

That there is no accident on the railway premises is clear because there is not

even a single document to show that the accident happened in railway

premises. The deceased was also not a bonafide passenger as no explanation

has been given as to how the so called original train ticket came into the

possession of the respondents.

10.          In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.           Impugned

judgment of the Tribunal dated 30.8.2012 is set aside. The claim petition of

the respondents will accordingly stand dismissed. The amount deposited in

this Court alongwith accrued interest, if any, be released to the appellant

within a period of six weeks from today.




MARCH 06, 2014                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne