Delhi High Court
Lal Chand Sah & Anr. vs Union Of India on 8 May, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 352/2012
% 8th May, 2014
LAL CHAND SAH & ANR. ......Appellants
Through: None.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, 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 Tribunal dated
6.6.2012 by which the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the
appellants seeking statutory compensation for the death of their son Mr.
Ayush Ranjan in an untoward incident on 28.10.2010.
2. The facts of the case are that the deceased Ayush Ranjan on
28.10.2010 was said to be travelling in a train from New Delhi to Panipat.
During the course of the journey Mr. Ayush Ranjan accidently fell down
between Sonipat and Sandhal and succumbed to his injuries. It is pleaded
FAO 352/2012 Page 1 of 6
that the deceased was a bonafide passenger as he was travelling on a valid
train ticket.
3. Respondent contested the case of the appellants and pleaded
that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. It is also pleaded that there
is no untoward incident of a fall from the train because in such a case it
cannot be that only the head is severed and which is found at a distance from
the body. Before this Court it is also argued by the counsel for the
respondent that there is no eye witness to the fall from the train, and
therefore, the claim petition was rightly dismissed.
4. The Railway Claims Tribunal has given the following reasons
for dismissing the claim petition.
"8. These two issues are taken up for consideration
simultaneously for the sake of convenience and also as they are
inter-related.
9. At the outset, I must make it clear that there is no serious
challenge during the course of evidence regarding the
accidental death of the deceased. According to the claimant,
the deceased accidentally fell down from the running train and
succumbed to the injuries. Whereas, the respondent denied the
entire allegations and categorically stated that the deceased died
due to self-inflicted injury. In view of this specific defence,
initial burden lies upon the applicant to prove the deceased
accidentally fell down from the train. Applicant No.1 Lal
Chand Sah who is the father of the deceased categorically
admitted that he was not an eye -witness to the incident,
FAO 352/2012 Page 2 of 6
therefore, his evidence is not sufficient to establish that the
deceased accidentally fell down from the train. The applicant
further relied upon the Memo which shows that the dead body
was lying upon the track. In the instant case, driver of the train
reported that one dead body was lying. During the course of
investigation body was found without neck and subsequently
the neck was found in a shrub away from the track. The Ld.
Counsel for the respondent submitted that from the topography
of the spot it is highly impossible that the deceased fallen down
from the train and it is a case of run over by certain train.
Considering the peculiar circumstances, the evidence of the
applicant does not inspire confidence that the deceased fell
down from the running train. Not only this, CMI report and
Station Master report clearly suggest that no 'untoward
incident'' reported. In such situation, merely because the body
was found nearby the track, this itself is not sufficient to jump
to the conclusion that the deceased might have fallen down
from the train, more particularly when the dead body was found
without neck on the track. Suffice to say that applicant failed to
establish untoward incident and the possibility of self inflicted
injury cannot be ruled out. Hence, my findings on Issue no.2 is
in negative and my finding on issue No.3 is in the affirmative.
Regarding Issue No.1:
10. In-so-far-as bona fide passenger is concerned according
to the applicant; the deceased was travelling with a valid ticket
and copy of the same is placed on record. However, I have
already observed that applicant failed to establish that on the
relevant day deceased accidentally fell down from the train,
therefore, the question of bonafide passenger does not arise.
Hence, my finding on this point is negative."
5. A reading of the aforesaid paras shows that the Tribunal has
held that because of the topography of the spot it is highly impossible that
the deceased could have fallen down from the train and therefore it is held
that the case is a case of run over by a train. Tribunal also holds that
FAO 352/2012 Page 3 of 6
evidence led by the appellants does not inspire confidence and which is to be
taken with the fact that there is no report of an untoward incident to any
railway official. Tribunal concludes that merely because the body is found
near the tracks is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion of an untoward
incident as per Section 123(c) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act,
1989.
6. I may note that the Tribunal has given a finding in favour of the
appellants that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. This finding is given
in para 10 of the impugned judgment and which reads as under:-
"Regarding Issue No.1:
10. In-so-far-as bona fide passenger is concerned according
to the applicant; the deceased was travelling with a valid ticket
and copy of the same is placed on record. However, I have
already observed that applicant failed to establish that on the
relevant day deceased accidentally fell down from the train,
therefore, the question of bonafide passenger does not arise.
Hence, my finding on this point is negative."
7. The findings of the Tribunal with respect to issue no.1 in para
10 where it holds that the deceased was a bonafide passenger is surely in
total conflict and an antithesis to the conclusions arrived at in paras 8 and 9
that there is no fall from the train. Once the deceased is held to be a
bonafide passenger in the train and the body is found lying on the tracks,
FAO 352/2012 Page 4 of 6
surely it would be a case of an untoward incident. In fact, most important
aspect which somehow has not been mentioned by the Tribunal, and which
this Court has found from the reading of the record of the Tribunal, is that on
jamatalashi/search of the person of the deceased Ayush Ranjan vide report
Ex.AW1/6, it is mentioned that the train ticket was found of the same date of
travel when the body of the deceased was found lying on the tracks. In my
opinion, this is a clinching piece of evidence and the Tribunal has done
grave injustice by not referring this fact in the impugned judgment. This
document Ex.AW1/6 which states that a train ticket of travel was recovered
from the body/person of the deceased, and which was of the same date of the
incident of recovery of the body from the tracks, and which clearly shows on
preponderance of probabilities that the deceased died on account of fall from
the train while he was undertaking the train journey. It is not unknown that
in many cases of fall from a train incidents are not reported, and merely
because an incident is not reported to the railway officials, is not sufficient
to hold, more so in the facts of the present case, that there was no fall of the
deceased from the train.
8. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and appellants are
held entitled to statutory compensation of Rs. 4 lacs alongwith pendente lite
FAO 352/2012 Page 5 of 6
and future interest till payment at 7 ½% per annum simple. Since no one has
appeared for the appellants, copy of this judgment will be sent by the
Registry of this Court by registered AD post as also through process server
of the district to the residence of the appellants so that the appellants have
knowledge of the present judgment. Respondent also through its official
posted at the railway station nearest to the residence of the appellants, will
within a period of six weeks, serve a copy of this judgment upon the
appellants. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
MAY 08, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
