Delhi High Court
Rajpati & Ors vs Union Of India on 18 March, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 281/2012
% 18th March, 2014
RAJPATI & ORS ......Appellants
Through: None.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar, 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 is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal
dated 15.3.2012 which had dismissed the claim petition.
2. The facts of the case are that the deceased Sh. Ved Pal was the
husband of the appellant no.1/applicant no.1 and who died in an untoward
incident by falling from a train on 29.1.2011 while travelling from Panipat to
Narela.
3. The fact that the deceased was a bonafide passenger cannot be
disputed because during the jamatalashi/search of the person/body of the
deceased, a railway journey ticket bearing no. 69289007( Ex.AW1/6) of
FAO 281/2012 Page 1 of 4
travel from Panipat to Narela was recovered. Therefore, the deceased
clearly was a bonafide passenger.
4. The Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition simply
on the ground that the body of the deceased Ved Pal was found in a cut up
position and which shows according to the Tribunal that the deceased was
run over by a train.
5. The conclusion of the Railway Claims Tribunal is clearly erroneous
because even the written statement of the respondent/Railways does not
show that there was any pleading that the death in question was because of
running over by a train.
6. It is further required to be noted that it is not as if that the place of
incident/accident/death is either near to the place of residence of the
deceased or near the place of the work of the deceased. Therefore, once
there is a valid journey ticket found of the date of the incident from the
body/person of the deceased during the jamatalashi/search, the same would
only be because the deceased was travelling by a train and from which he
fell.
7. No doubt, the body is found in a cut up position, however, it is not
inconceivable that while falling from the train, the deceased could have got
entangled in the steps and the wheels of the same train in which he was
FAO 281/2012 Page 2 of 4
travelling and surely which type of incidents are not unknown. Therefore,
the Tribunal cannot only on the ground that the body of the deceased was in
a cut up condition hold that the case was a case of run over and not of falling
from a train.
8. I may note that the liability of the Railways under Section 123(c) read
with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 is a strict liability. Once the
deceased with a valid train ticket is found on the railway track, and which is
not near the place of residence or the place of work of the deceased, onus of
proof shifts upon the Railways to show that the deceased was not a bonafide
passenger travelling on the train. This onus in my opinion Railways has
miserably failed to discharge because the admitted facts are that the
deceased body was found lying on the tracks much away from a place where
the deceased was expected to be ie in a place which is found between the
travel from Panipat to Narela Railway Station and for which travel the train
ticket was found on the body/person of the deceased.
9. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment
of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 15.3.2012 is set aside. Claimants will
be entitled to statutory compensation of Rs.4 lacs alongwith interest at 7 ½
% per annum simple from the date of filing of the petition till the date of
payment. Payment to the claimants will be deposited in a nationalized bank
FAO 281/2012 Page 3 of 4
and the Bank Manager will ensure that the payment of the compensation is
received directly only by the appellants/applicants. So far as appellants no.2
to 4 who are minors is concerned, their 1/4th share each will be put in a fixed
deposit in a nationalized bank and only interest will be used for the benefit
of the minors. The amount be released to appellants no.2 to 4 on their
becoming majors. If otherwise there is any need for lumpsum amount by the
applicants/appellants no. 2 to 4, they can on an urgent necessity arising
approach the Tribunal for lumpsum payment(s) out of the fixed deposits.
10. The appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of, leaving the parties
to bear their own costs.
MARCH 18, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
