Delhi High Court
Nawab Singh vs Union Of India on 21 May, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No.318/2012
% 21st May, 2014
NAWAB SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Monika, proxy counsel for
Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate
Versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar, 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 is filed by the appellant/ claimant under Section 23 of
the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the
Tribunal dated 23.9.2011 which has dismissed the claim petition filed by the
appellant.
2. The case of the appellant was that he on 21.8.2008 at about 10 p.m.
was travelling on train No. 7 SD from Shahdra to Gotra Halt, Khekra,
Baghpat, U.P after purchasing a ticket. A ticket was stated to be purchased
because the validity of appellants Monthly Season Ticket from Gotra Halt to
FAO 318/2012 Page 1 of 5
Shivaji Bridge, Delhi had earlier expired on 18.8.2008. It was further
pleaded that on account of the heavy rush in the compartment of the train
and since the appellant was standing near the gate of the compartment, when
the train reached near the Gotra Halt, there was a sudden jerk and due to
sudden jerk and thrust of the passengers, the appellant lost his balance and
fell down from the running train resulting in the appellant sustaining
grievous injuries to his legs. Both the legs of the appellant were injured,
however, his left leg below the knee had to be amputated. The right foot of
the appellant is also pleaded to be partly amputated.
3. Respondent contested the claim petition and pleaded that there was no
untoward incident and also that the appellant was not a bonafide passenger.
It was also pleaded that with respect to the train no. 7 SD, there was no
accident which was reported at Gotra Halt, Khekra, Baghpat, U.P.
Respondent also pleaded that the case was a case of 'run over' and not of an
'untoward incident' as per the meaning of the expression in Section 123(c)
read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
4. The Railway Claims Tribunal has arrived at a finding that the
appellant was not a bonafide passenger because no train ticket was
recovered. The statement of the co-passenger Bharat Singh has been
FAO 318/2012 Page 2 of 5
disbelieved. Tribunal also notes that even the document of the hospital where
the appellant was admitted stated that the case was the case of run over.
Accordingly the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition.
5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the
record.
6. No doubt, train ticket is lost in many cases of untoward incident and
non-recovery of train ticket and non-filing of train ticket is not conclusive of
the aspect as to whether a person is or is not a bonafide passenger, however,
a Court has to examine the facts of each case to determine whether the
person was a bonafide passenger i.e there was a train travel and the train
travel was pursuant to having a valid ticket. In the present case I find that
besides the reasoning given by the Tribunal there is one other important
reason why the claim petition of the appellant lacks honesty. Appellant
claims that he had purchased a ticket to travel to Gotra Halt because his
Monthly Season Ticket from Gotra Halt to Shivaji Bridge had expired, and
which expired MST is filed as Exhibit AW-1/6, however, this document as
exhibit AW-1/6 cannot help the petitioner to show the purchase of the ticket
inasmuch as this MST is not for travel to Gotra Halt Station at Baghpat, U.P.
but for his travel from Gotra Halt Railway Station to Shivaji Bridge Railway
FAO 318/2012 Page 3 of 5
Station at New Delhi. Therefore, the appellant never had a valid Monthly
Season Ticket which has expired even for travel to Gotra Halt. The case of
the appellant, therefore, clearly lacks credibility.
7. So far as the statement of AW-2 Bharat Singh is concerned no doubt
he did make a statement to the police that the appellant who was working as
a driver with a member of parliament was travelling with him on 21.8.2008,
however, in my opinion in the facts of the present case this Court would not
like to believe the oral statement of Bharat Singh of the train travel of the
appellant for various reasons. Firstly, as already observed above the case of
the appellant is found to lack credibility as per the reasoning given herein
above. Second reason for not believing the statement of AW-2, Bharat Singh
is that Bharat Singh in his statement stated that he had met the appellant at
the Station and on enquiry as to why the appellant had purchased a ticket he
was told by the appellant that the ticket was purchased because the MST had
been mistakenly left at home. This explanation is, therefore, totally different
than the explanation which had been given by the appellant in his claim
petition for purchase of the ticket to Gotra Halt Station and which was that
the MST had expired. Thirdly, the statement of Bharat Singh cannot be
believed because Bharat Singh gave a statement to the police more than two
FAO 318/2012 Page 4 of 5
months after the incident which took place on21.1.2008, and which aspect
Bharat Singh has admitted in his cross-examination.
8. A civil case is decided on preponderance of probabilities. The
preponderance of probability in the present case is that the appellant has
failed to prove that he was a bonafide passenger i.e a person is travelling on
the basis of a valid train ticket and who fell from the train.
9. In view of the above discussion I hold that the Tribunal was justified
in arriving at a finding that the appellant was not a bonafide passenger and
that there was no untoward incident of a fall of the appellant from the train.
10. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, and the same is
therefore dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
MAY 21, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
pg
