Kanti Devi & Ors. vs Union Of India
2014 Latest Caselaw 1417 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         FAO No. 103/2011
%                                              18th March, 2014
KANTI DEVI & ORS.                                          ......Appellants
                          Through:       Mr. Sanjeev Mehta, Adv.

                          VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA                                           ...... Respondent

                          Through:       Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv.

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 shows that how the establishment of the Railway

Claims Tribunal is misused by unscrupulous people to get the statutory

compensation, which is of a large amount of Rs. 4 lacs. I am forced to

observe that the present litigation is false because whereas in almost every

case of an incident happening of a train accident or of fall from a train, there

exist not one but numerous documents/reports which are prepared of the

same date and immediate following dates including of recording of various

statements from different witnesses of the untoward incident. Whenever

there is a train accident/untoward incident, invariably there is either the

report of a Railway official including a driver or a guard of a train or a

station master or railway police, or the local police and so on. However, in

the present case, there is only one document on the basis of which the claim

petition is filed alleging an untoward incident, and which is the self-serving

statement made to the police on 29.3.2009, although the incident is alleged

to be of 22.2.2009 ie 35 days earlier.

2. The facts as pleaded by the appellant/applicant were that the deceased

Sh. Suresh Prasad boarded train no. 2506 DN North East Express at New

Delhi Junction for travelling to Patna and that when the train was

approaching the Patna Junction, the deceased Suresh Prasad fell down from

the train on account of jostling between the passengers. It is claimed that

Suresh Prasad was thereafter brought to Patna Medical College Hospital for

treatment and was discharged on 11.4.2009. It may be noted that the

deceased Suresh Prasad was alive when he filed the claim petition, but, he

expired during the pendency of the proceedings before the Railway Claims

Tribunal.

3. In the present case, admittedly, no train ticket was recovered from the

jamatalashi/search of the person of Suresh Prasad either by the hospital

authorities or by any railway official or by the police official. Not only there

was no train ticket found or filed, the fact of the matter is that it is not as if

the deceased Suresh Prasad had no friends or relatives who would not have

reported the train accident/untoward incident to either the railway authorities

or to the police authorities if not on the same date of the incident but soon

thereafter. Therefore, I agree with the conclusion of the Railway Claims

Tribunal that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, and in fact he was

not even travelling on the train from which he is alleged to have fallen off or

for that matter from any train.

4. It bears reiteration that admittedly, the first statement /entry of a fall

from the train on 22.2.2009 was made only by the deceased himself on

29.3.2009. A reading of this statement does not show that the deceased was

in a state of continuous unconsciousness from 22.2.2009 till his statement

was recorded on 29.3.2009 that he would not have reported/stated about the

alleged untoward incident on 22.2.2009 or so on thereafter. As already

stated above, if there was a train accident/untoward incident, besides the

deceased Suresh Prasad the same would have been reported if not by him

then by his family members or well-wishers or other relatives etc, who had

come to the hospital.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued with vehemence that the

respondent/Railways was bound to file the report of the Division Railway

Manager (DRM) in accordance with the Railway Passengers (Manner of

Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 and which has not been

done either before the Tribunal or even in this Court in spite of orders and

therefore, an adverse inference should be drawn against the

respondent/Railways that an untoward incident did in fact take place. For

this purpose, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court

in the case of Jayalakshmi and others Vs. Union of India 2013 ACJ 1707.

6. This argument urged on behalf of the appellant is totally misconceived

because the process under Rules 7 to 10 of the 2003 Rules starts pursuant to

the earlier Rules 3 to 6 and which require reporting by railway servant after

coming to know of an occurrence of an untoward incident. Surely therefore,

if no railway servant has seen an untoward incident, there does not arise the

possibility of consequential reports under Rules 3 to 6, and thereafter of the

enquiries as per Rules 7 to 10. In the present case, it is not the case of the

appellant that any railway official did see the untoward incident but yet he

did not report the same. As already stated above, the first and the only

report alleging incident of falling from the train is of the statement made by

Sh. Suresh Prasad himself on 29.3.2009. Therefore, in the facts of the

present case, the judgment relied upon by the appellants in the case of

Jayalakshmi (supra) would have no application. The ratio of each case has

to be read as per facts of that case, and in Jayalakshmi (supra) observation

as to requirement of DRM's report is because valid train travel was

otherwise established in that case.

7. Counsel for the appellant next placed reliance upon the report

prepared by the local police dated 26.3.2009 to argue that the appellants

entitled to compensation because this report dated 26.3.2009 shows that an

untoward incident took place as stated by the police. This argument urged

on behalf of the appellants is misconceived not only because the report dated

26.3.2009 prepared by the railway police at Patna is not of a

contemporaneous period to the alleged incident on 22.2.2009, but also I note

that the same completely lacks credibility because though mention is made

in the same of an incident on 22.2.2009 but that is observed to be as per

enquiries conducted from local people, but, who were these local people,

their names and addresses and whether they were eye witnesses of the

accident etc etc are not at all mentioned in the report. In my opinion, this

report has been got procured/manipulated by the appellants for filing of the

misconceived and false claim petition in the present case.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants relies upon the judgment in the

case of Parmanand Katara Vs. Union of India and Others 1989 ACJ 1000

to argue that it is not necessary that police reports be prepared and enquiries

be conducted by the hospital authorities because the object is first to save the

life of a person who is injured. Obviously, there cannot be any dispute to this

proposition, however, in the present case, it is not the stand of the appellants

that from the clothes of the deceased any ticket was recovered and it is not as

if that the family members of the deceased Sh. Suresh Prasad never

contacted the deceased Suresh Prasad in the hospital immediately after the

incident or that they did not talk to him till 23.3.2009 when he first made the

statement to the police. Therefore I fail to understand how the ratio of

Parmanand Katara's case (supra) that hospital authorities must save lives

applies to this case.

9. I find it totally improbable, inconceivable and the abuse of the process

of law in the facts of the present case of a case being put up that a railway

accident/untoward incident has happened in the facts of the present case.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant repeatedly wanted to cite various

judgments, however, I fail to understand as to what judgments can do in the

facts of a case such as the present where the facts show that there is no

untoward incident. The judgments delivered by courts are as per the facts of

each case and first the facts have to show that a untoward incident has

happened for compensation to be claimed under Section 123(c) read with

Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and, the appellants have miserably

failed to prove/show in the present case that a train accident/untoward

incident happened.

11(i) In view of the above, it is clear that the claim petition, as well as this

appeal, is an abuse of the process of law and an endeavour to defraud the

Railways by claiming statutory compensation of Rs.4 lacs. I have already

stated above, that there is not a single report or a document of a railway

official or the railway police or the local police of an incident of falling from

the train of the same date of the incident or of soon thereafter, and the only

document of an alleged untoward incident is of 35 days after the date of the

alleged untoward incident.

(ii) There are many cases which are coming up in appeal before this Court

where it is clear that there seems to be, in some cases, a racket being

indulged into so as to get the huge statutory compensation of Rs. 4 lacs.

Persons who seek compensation are aided and abetted by people who know

the procedure of the Railway Claims Tribunal and resultantly incidents are

sought to be created as untoward incidents as defined under Section 123(c)

read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act so as to claim compensation

of the amount of Rs.4 lacs which is granted by the Courts alongwith pendent

lite and future interest.

12. In view of the above, there is no merit whatsoever in the appeal, and

which is therefore dismissed, with the simultaneous direction to the

Registrar General to conduct a preliminary enquiry and give a report with

respect to offences committed which are the subject matter of Section 340

Cr. P.C by the appellants and all those who have abetted them. The

appellants are majors as informed to me by their counsel.

13. List before the Registrar General for conducting a preliminary enquiry

under Section 340 Cr. P.C in terms of the present judgment on 21 st April,

2014.

MARCH 18, 2014                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib