Delhi High Court
Jabar Singh Yadav vs Union Of India on 28 March, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No.210/2013
% 28th March, 2014
JABAR SINGH YADAV ....Appellant
Through: Mr. Yogesh Swroop, Mr. B.K. Roy,
Advocates
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Raheel Kohli, Advocate for Mr.
Ravi Prakash, 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 under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal
Act, 1987 impugns the judgment of the Tribunal dated 11.12.2012 by which
the Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the
appellant/father of the deceased Ms. Anita Yadav, who died in an untoward
incident on 2.3.2011.
2(i) The facts of the case are that Ms. Anita Yadav, a Sub-Inspector in
U.P. Police and the daughter of the appellant/petitioner before the Tribunal,
was traveling with her brother Sh. Jitender on 2.3.2011 from Ghaziabad to
Old Delhi Railway Station by the Padmavat Express train after purchasing
two tickets. It was the case of the appellant that when the train was passing
through Shahdara station, all of a sudden due to jerk and jostling, Ms. Anita
Yadav fell down from the moving train and consequently sustained grievous
injuries. Ms. Anita Yadav due to the injuries, died in the hospital during the
same day.
(ii) Respondent contested the claim petition by pleading that the deceased
was not a bona fide passenger. Respondent also contended that the deceased
must have tried to get down while the train was passing at Shahdara station
to cut short the time to reach her brother's house at East Arjun Nagar Colony
and in this process she died because of her own criminal negligence.
3. Before me, learned counsel for the appellant has rightly argued that
the documents filed by the respondent itself before the Tribunal, including
the document Ex. RW-1/1 dated 2.3.2011, show that one person had fallen
down from the train 4205 Express Train while passing through Shahdara
station, Platform nos. 4 & 6 and this person indubitably is the deceased Ms.
Anita Yadav, because it is not the case of the respondent that any other
person fell down from the train 4205 Express on 2.3.2011. Similar
certificate has been proved on record as Ex. AW-1/2. It is argued on behalf
of the appellant that it is not unknown that in such untoward incident cases,
the ticket can be lost, and that the ticket was in fact lost because the
deceased Ms. Anita Yadav was carrying a small bag which contained the
train ticket, and this bag was lost in the untoward incident. It is also argued
that all the other documents being AW-1/3 to AW 1/8 show that accident in
question did happen on 2.3.2011, and which documents are the DD entries
of the police and the reports made by the police.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent very vehemently canvassed and
argued the case of the respondent by relying upon the DRM's report dated
10.7.2012 which has been filed before the Tribunal, that in view of this
report it is clear that the deceased was trying to get down from a running
train, and that consequently the Tribunal had rightly held that Ms. Anita
Yadav died on account of her own criminal negligence. It is also argued that
once no train ticket was found from the deceased the Tribunal has rightly
held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.
5. In my opinion, for two reasons, the arguments urged on behalf of the
appellant merit acceptance and accordingly I do not find any substance in
the arguments which are urged on behalf of the respondent. Firstly, from a
mere report of the DRM it cannot be held and concluded that the deceased
died while trying to get down from a running train because the DRM's
report is not based on any eye-witness or a statement of any person that Ms.
Anita Yadav was trying to get down from a running train. There can be no
presumption, either in law or in fact, of the deceased Ms. Anita Yadav trying
to get down from the train merely because the body was found to have rolled
over for some distance, inasmuch as, surely when a person falls down from a
train the body can in such cases also undoubtedly roll over for a distance
once there is an even surface like a platform in this case. Secondly, in my
opinion, it is not a correct conclusion to draw in a case such as the present of
no train ticket having been purchased, inasmuch as, specific evidence is led
that the deceased was carrying a small bag containing the train ticket which
has been lost in the accident. This is the specific evidence given by the
brother of the deceased namely Sh. Jitender, who was a co-passenger with
the deceased, and he appeared before the Tribunal and deposed as AW2 with
respect to purchase of the two tickets for travelling from Ghaziabad to Old
Delhi Railway Station and the same were in her bag which was lost at the
time of the accident.
6. The Supreme Court has in the judgments in the cases of Union of
India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 527 and
Jameela and Ors. Vs. Union of India (2010) 12 SCC 443 held that the
liability of Railways under Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act,
1989 is a strict liability for an 'untoward incident' as per the meaning of the
expression as found in these sections. If one was to accept the DRM's report
in a case like this, and which is not based on an eye-witness account, the
same would amount to committing a mockery of the principle of strict
liability of the Railways.
7. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned
judgment of the Tribunal dated 11.12.2012 is set aside. Appellant along
with Smt. Ramkali, who is the mother of the deceased Ms. Anita Yadav, will
be entitled to the statutory compensation of Rs.4 lacs in equal parts. The
statutory compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs will carry pendente lite and future
interest @ 6% per annum simple till payment. Parties are left to bear their
own costs.
MARCH 28, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
godara
