Delhi High Court
Mohan Lal vs Union Of India on 16 May, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 139/2014
% 16th May, 2014
MOHAN LAL ......Appellant
Through: Mr. S.K.Vashistha, Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA ...... Respondent
Through:
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
24.1.2014 which has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant who
was injured in an untoward incident on 26.2.2012.
2. The case of the appellant was that on 26.2.2012, he was
travelling by the train Himalaya Queen Exp. Train from Kalka to Delhi and
he fell down accidently from the running train near the Sarai Rohilla/ Delhi
Railway Station due to sudden jerk in the train.
FAO 139/2014 Page 1 of 5
3(i) So far as the aspect that the deceased was a bonafide passenger
is concerned, the same is found in favour of the appellant by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has however found that the appellant was guilty of criminal
negligence and the present case was a case of self-inflicted injuries because
the appellant tried to de-board the train which was coming at a high speed in
the station. The appellant has been held to be trying to de-board the train
which was entering the station at a high speed and which is clear from the
fact that the bogie/coach from where the appellant was de-boarding was the
second coach from the engine. When a long distance train, and which has
around 16 to 19 bogies, enters a station, in its natural course, at the initial
stage of entering the station, the speed is high, and which speed gradually
comes down when the train slows down for stopping at the requisite places
where engine has to stop and the bogies have to be placed.
(ii) The Tribunal has in this regard relied upon the statement of an
eye witness Sh. Ramsakal Basisth, an employee of the Railway Police Force
and this eye witness specifically stated that the appellant tried to get down
from the running train which was at a high speed and consequently suffered
injuries in the process. The relevant paras of the judgment of the Tribunal
are paras 8 and 9, and which read as under:-
FAO 139/2014 Page 2 of 5
"08. The circumstantial evidences connected to the incident
does not suggest that Mohan Lal accidentally fell down from
the running train. Had he fallen from the train through the exit,
the body of the person, would have had a trajectory, thereby
dropping him away from the track on the platform and not in
between the coach and the track. Moreover, the Type of injury
which a victim sustains in a case of accidental fall, is different
i.e. lacerated wounds, fractures, head injury etc. However, as
per his own admission and medical report (Ext.A-7 & A-8),
Mohan Lal went inside the gap in between the track and the
platform and crushed his right leg. Moreover, neither any co-
passenger nor the Guard (Ext. R-23) of the train saw Mohan Lal
falling. In fact, it was the Station Master/Delhi Sarai Rohilla
station, who reported vide his memo dtd. 26.02.2012 (Ext.R-25)
addressed to GRP, that a passenger has fallen down from train
no.14096 at the time of detraining. A similar information was
relayed by SSE/C&E that a man has been found lying
unconscious in front of train duty C & W office on platform
no.01 (Ext.R-25). The above records confirm that Mohan Lal
met with the accident at the extreme end of the platform, while
trying to deboard from the running train, which was entering
the platform at a high speed and in that process went in between
the track and the platform.
09. On 26.02.2012, the applicant informed Head Constable
Om Prakash on phone, that he fell down from the crowded
compartment of the Himalayan Queen Ext. At the time of
deboarding due to a sudden jerk (Ext.A-5). GRP/Delhi vide
their DD No. 208 dtd. 15.03.2012 recorded that no further
enquiry is required to be conducted in this case. However, the
railways on receipt of the memos form the SSE (C&W) and Dy.
SM/Delhi Sarai Rohila, conducted their own investigation and
recorded the details of the incident on the basis the statement of
FAO 139/2014 Page 3 of 5
Shri Ramsakal Basisth, SI/RPF, DDE, who witnessed the
incident himself. As per his statement (Ext.R-18) on
26.02.2012, at around 22.05 hrs when he was on duty at the
station, he saw a person trying to deboard near the FOB from
the second coach from the engine of train no.14096 Himalayan
Queen Exp. He adds that he advised the passenger not to obtain
like this but the person did not pay any head to his advice and
in the process toppled and went below the train, sustaining
grievous injury. He informed GRP and at 23.20 Hrs. the
injured person was taken to the hospital by the PCR Van. I
have no reason to disbelieve this first hand account of a RPF
official, which was recorded in the RPF post diary of Delhi
Sarai Rohila station at 23.45 hrs of 26.02.2012 (Ext. R-17).
After all, the railways have an well established system of
recording all events, connected of train running on a day to day
basis, in the station diaries of all branches."
4. I completely agree with the aforesaid observations and
conclusions of the Railway Claims Tribunal because there is no reason why
statement of an independent witness and who is an employee of the Railway
Police Force, should be disbelieved. I may note that strict rules of Evidence
and CPC do not apply to the Railway Claims Tribunal, and therefore, I
disagree with the arguments urged on behalf of the appellant that the
statement of Sh. Ramsakal Basisth could not be used unless he was brought
into the witness box by the respondent. Contemporaneous statement made
to the appropriate authorities, at the time of happening of the untoward
incident can be used as a document as per facts of each case in cases before
FAO 139/2014 Page 4 of 5
the Railway Claims Tribunal. In the facts of this case on preponderance of
probabilities the Railway Claims Tribunal has rightly believed the statement
of the independent/neutral witness Sh. Ramsakal and which has been proved
as Ex.R-18 and if the appellant wanted to dispute the statement/document
Ex.R-18, the onus was upon the appellant to summon Sh. Ramsakal, and
which he failed to do.
5. As per the provisions of Section 123(c) read with Section 124-
A of the Railways Act, 1989, no doubt the liability of the Railways is a strict
liability, but it is equally well settled that once a person gets injured on
account of his own criminal negligence or the case is a case of self-inflicted
injuries, no compensation can be awarded.
6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the appeal, and
which is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
MAY 16, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
