Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Sukani Devi And Ors on 14 August, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 256/2015 and CM N.15048/2015 (stay)
UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Shipra Shukla, Advocate
versus
SUKANI DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 14.08.2015
1. This is an appeal filed by the Union of India via General
Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi, which is directed against the
judgment dated 08.05.2015, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal
(in short the Tribunal).
1.1 The Tribunal vide the impugned judgment has allowed the
claim of the respondents and has awarded a compensation in the sum
of Rs.4 Lakhs alongwith interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date
of filing of the claim petition till realization. The manner in which the
compensation is to be paid has been set out in the impugned
judgment.
2. There are two findings of fact which the tribunal has recorded
in the impugned judgment.
2.1 First, that the deceased (i.e. Siya Ram Yadav), who is the
husband of respondent no.1 was a bonafide passenger. Second, he
died on account of an "untoward incident" which occurred at platform
no.2, on 17.05.2013. The findings in that behalf are recorded in
paragraph no.7 of the impugned judgment.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, assails the
impugned judgment on two grounds. First that, the tribunal failed to
take into account the report of the Divisional Safety Commissioner;
and second, that the evidence filed by way of affidavit of the Loco
Pilot Shunter of the Railways, was ignored.
3.1 In sum, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the tribunal has ignored vital pieces of evidence put
forth before it, and therefore, come to an erroneous conclusion.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. In my view,
the submissions made by the appellant are without merit for the
following reasons :-
4.1 The stand taken by the appellant before the tribunal is that the
appellant had suffered "self inflicted" injuries on account of his own
negligence. The tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that Siya
Ram Yadav died on account of an untoward incident. The tribunal in
coming to this conclusion relied upon the DD entry and material
placed before it by the appellant. On an appreciation of evidence
placed before it, the tribunal concluded that the Siya Ram Yadav died
while boarding the "Jan Sadharan Express Train" at platform no.2.
The relevant observations made in that behalf are extracted
hereinbelow for the sake of convenience :-
"..We may at this stage also observe that said original ticket
was produced before this Tribunal, which was exhibited as
Ex. A-16. It is also not denied that body of deceased (as a
injured person) was extracted from Platform no.2, on the said
date of journey, before departure of train at 15.20 hrs, as
explained by documents produced by Railway. Further, it
may be noted that DD entry No.12A PS AVRS, Delhi,
regarding injured person, was recorded based on information
received by PCR through w/set at 3.15 p.m., which was
exhibited No.A-10. Further DD entry No.16A(Ex.A-11) of
the said date recorded at 6.00 p.m. clearly referred earlier DD
entry no.12A, as well as regarding falling of person while
boarding Jan Sadharan Express and shifting him to Lal
Bahadur Shastri Hospital by the CAT Ambulance, who later
on was declared dead vide MLC No.6945/13 (Ex. A-18).
Thus, it is clearly proved that deceased was a bonafide
passenger, holding valid ticket purchased on the date of
incident prior in time to the departure time of said train
namely train No.12388 Anand Vihar Jan Sadharan Exp.
Train,Ex. Anand Vihar Railway Station to Patna Railway
Station. As such, it is proved beyond any doubt that incident
in question took place at Platform no.2, Anand Vihar Railway
Station while boarding Jan Sadharan Exp. Train from said
Railway Station. There is absolutely no justification in the
contentions raised by Railway that injuries suffered by the
deceased were self-inflicted and the same was fall out of his
own criminal act and negligence, and there is no evidence to
prove that deceased was not travelling vie said train, as
projected by the respondent.." (emphasis is mine)
4.1 Having regard to the aforesaid findings, the contention of the
learned counsel for the appellant, that Siya Ram Yadav died due to
his own negligence, is not tenable.
4.2 Furthermore, I may indicate that even in the report of the
Divisional Safety Commissioner what has clearly come through is
that Siya Ram Yadav died due to a fall while trying to board the Jan
Sadharan Express Train; albeit when in point of fact it was stationary.
The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that Siya Ram
Yadav died due injuries sustained on account of being jostled by the
crowd and, in that sense, contributed to his death, does not impress
me.
4.3 The reason for this is that crowd control within the precincts of
the railway station, (which necessarily includes the platforms) is the
obligation of the railways. Orderly, embarkation as well
disembarkation is the obligation of the Railways. To that extent the
Railway owes a duty of care to a bonafide passenger.
5. In so far as the Loco-Pilot-Shunter's affidavit is concerned, its
contents are completely contrary to the report of the Divisional Safety
Commissioner as it is suggestive of the fact that no incident took
place, at all.
6. In these circumstances, no interference is called for with the
impugned judgement. The captioned appeal and the pending
application are accordingly, dismissed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
AUGUST 14, 2015
yg
