Delhi High Court
Anita Devi vs Union Of India on 27 October, 2014
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 318/2014
Decided on 27th October, 2014
ANITA DEVI ..... Appellant
Through : Ms. Nidhi Vashishtha, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through : None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
A.K.PATHAK, J.(ORAL)
1. By the order impugned in this appeal, Tribunal has dismissed the
application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 filed
by the appellant, seeking compensation of `8,00,000/- in respect of death of
Late Shri Dharam Singh (deceased). Appellant is widow of deceased.
2. Appellant alleged that on 4th November, 2010 deceased was going
from Shahdara railway station at Delhi to Baraut in Bagpat District, UP after
purchasing a ticket. He boarded Delhi Saharanpur passenger. Due to heavy
rush, he was standing at the door of compartment and when the train reached
Saboli Fatak, deceased fell down from the moving train due to sudden jerk
and jolt coupled with push of the passengers standing near the gate.
FAO 318/2014 Page 1 of 6
Deceased sustained multiple injuries and died at the spot. Journey ticket
was lost in the incident.
3. Respondent denied the incident. Respondent alleged that it was not
liable to pay any compensation. Deceased was not a bonafide passenger.
Deceased did not die on account of „accidental fall‟ from the train
amounting to an „untoward incident‟, within the meaning of Section 123(c)
read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 ("the Act", for short).
4. Tribunal framed following issues:
i) Whether the deceased Shri Dharam Singh was a
bonafide passenger on board the train no. 51911 Delhi
Saharanpur passenger on 4.11.2010?
ii) Whether the death of the deceased was on
account of any accidental fall amounting to an
untoward incident, as alleged in the claim application?
iii) Whether the applicants are the legal heirs and
dependants of the deceased and are entitled to receive
compensation? If so to what extent?
iv) Relief, if any?
5. Appellant stepped in the witness box as AW1. She also examined Sh.
Sunil Kumar and Sh. Anil Kumar as AW2 and AW3, respectively. Certain
documents were proved by the appellant as Ex.AW-1 to Ex.AW-13.
Respondent placed on record DRM‟s report Ex. R-1 and relied upon the
FAO 318/2014 Page 2 of 6
same. Tribunal considered the entire evidence, which had come on record,
meticulously and has returned a finding that deceased was not a „bonafide
passenger‟ of the said train. This view was taken on the basis of
circumstantial evidence available on record; more particularly the fact that
deceased was living in the vicinity of „Saboli Fatak‟. Tribunal has also
noted that as per the appellant, deceased had left the house between 10.30
and 11.00 a.m. for going to Baraut. Copy of DRM‟s report Ex. R-1
indicated that train 3 SSD passenger left Delhi at 13:20 hours and reached
Delhi Shahdara railway station at 13:37 hours. „Saboli Fatak‟ was situated
at 4/9 kms, between Shahdara and Noli. As per the TSR record, train
reached Noli at 13:52 hours and left at 13:58 hours. Ex. A-1 was the first
DD entry recorded on 4th November, 2010 at Shahdara railway station on the
basis of a message received from PCR at 2 pm that a person was cut by a
train near „Saboli Fatak‟. It was difficult to have received information in the
police station within two minutes of the incident. Tribunal has further noted
that deceased was found lying between the railway track, which was not
possible, had deceased fallen from the compartment. No eye witness was
produced. AW2 and AW3 were not accompanying the deceased. Their
FAO 318/2014 Page 3 of 6
testimony was, otherwise, not trustworthy, since they surfaced before the
Tribunal for the first time. Their statements were not recorded by the police.
6. Arguments heard and material placed on record perused. Admittedly,
no eye witness was produced. No ticket was recovered from the deceased.
It is not the case that deceased remained lying on the tracks for a long time
therefore there were chances of ticket being lost. Indubitably, non-recovery
of ticket is not always fatal. However, no such straightjacket formula can be
adopted. Each case has to be viewed in its own fact as regards to recovery
of ticket so as to establish that victim was a bonafide passenger of the train.
Learned counsel contends that burden lies on the Railways that victim was
not a bonafide passenger. I do not agree with this contention of the learned
counsel. In my view initial onus always lies on the claimant to show that
death had taken place due to untoward incident of a bonafide passenger. Of
course, by filing the affidavit in a given facts of a case such an initial onus
can be be discharged so as to shift onus on the Railways, however, there is
no law that even initial onus of proof which has to be discharged will always
be on Railways. Indubitably, in the facts of a particular case, onus can be
light one such as in a case where deceased may have died at a place where
he could not have otherwise been unless he was travelling in the train and in
FAO 318/2014 Page 4 of 6
such circumstances depending on the facts of a particular case it may not be
necessary to prove the factum of the deceased having a ticket because
probability of loosing ticket in such type of cases is there. Similar view has
been expressed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the judgment
dated 8th January, 2014 passed in FAO NO.507/2011 titled Gurcharan Singh
& Ors. Vs. Union of India.
7. In this case, circumstantial evidence, which has come on record,
makes appellant‟s story doubtful and non-recovery of ticket assumes
importance; more particularly when deceased was living in the vicinity of
„Saboli Fatak‟. Body of the deceased was found lying between the tracks of
„Saboli Fatak‟ crossing. Since deceased was living in the vicinity of „Saboli
Fatak‟, possibility of his being run over by some train, while crossing the
track, is there in view of the fact that no journey ticket was found from his
possession. In the facts of this case, I am of the view that appellant has
failed to establish that deceased was travelling by Delhi-Saharanpur
passenger and fell down from the train on account of sudden jerk.
8. An injured person or deceased, as the case may be, is not always
entitled to compensation on account of accident relating to a train. Injured
or deceased will be entitled to compensation only if the accident or
FAO 318/2014 Page 5 of 6
„untoward incident‟ falls within the ambit and scope of Sections 123, 124
and 124-A of the Act. In this case, appellant has claimed compensation on
account of accidental fall from the train. Section 123(c)(2) of the Act defines
an „untoward incident‟, which means accidental falling of any passenger
from a train carrying passengers. In this case appellant has failed to prove
that deceased died on account of „untoward incident‟ within the meaning of
Section 123(c)(2) of the Act, thus appellant is not entitled to compensation
under Section 124-A of the Act. In this case, deceased appears to have been
run over by some train while crossing the railway track, thus, appellant is
not entitled to compensation in view of proviso to Section 124-A of the Act.
9. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment.
Appeal is dismissed.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
OCTOBER 27, 2014
rb
