Delhi High Court
Poonam & Ors. vs Union Of India (Ministry Of ... on 29 October, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 333/2015 and CM No.22990/2015 (condonation of delay of
88 days)
POONAM & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Yogesh Swaroop, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA (MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS) ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 29.10.2015
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Railway
Claims Tribunal dated 16.03.2015. The appeal has been filed by the
legal heirs of the deceased, Mehtab Singh, who died on 17.04.2013,
on account of an incident that occurred at the Mangol Puri railway
station.
1.1 The case of the appellants before the Tribunal was that on
17.04.2013, Sh. Mehtab Singh alongwith one, Sh. Sandeep came to
Mangol Puri Railway Station. It is averred that the train was late in
reaching the station. It is further averred that both Sh. Mehtab Singh
as also Sh. Sandeep had valid MSTs to travel from Kharawar to
Mangolpuri and back. The MST of Sh. Mehtab Singh was valid for
the period 06.04.2013 to 05.05.2013.
1.2 It is further averred that since the train was late and due to
heavy rush and a sudden jerk, Sh. Mehtab Singh, who had managed to
board the train, fell out of the train and thus died at the spot.
1.3 Based on the aforesaid, appellants filed a claim petition under
Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (in short the
Act). The compensation in the sum of Rs.4 Lakh was claimed on
account of death of Sh. Mehtab Singh.
2. The Tribunal concurred with the appellants that the deceased
was a bonafide passenger based on the fact that he carried with him a
valid MST.
2.1 On the other aspect, which is, that the incident, in which, Sh.
Mehtab Singh died was an "untoward incident", the Tribunal came to
a contrary conclusion. The Tribunal's conclusion was based on a
contemporaneous material placed before it, which was, the statement
made by the Loco-Pilot, one, Sh. Kuldeep Singh and the endorsement
made by him in his official note book. In addition, the Tribunal also
took into account the statement made by the guard, one, Sh. Ramveer
Singh.
2.2 While reaching its conclusion, the Tribunal, discarded the
evidence of the co-traveller, Sh. Sandeep (AW-2), on the ground that
he was an interested party. The relevant statement of the Loco-Pilot
and the guard is recorded verbatim in vernacular language (i.e. in
Hindi) in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the impugned judgment. The
factum of the endorsement made in the driver's note book is adverted
to in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment.
2.3 The Tribunal based on the aforesaid material, as indicated
above, came to the conclusion that the statements and records placed
by the respondent were generated in the normal course of work and
that the officials did not stand to gain or lose anything by
misrepresenting facts.
2.3 On the other hand, the Tribunal was of the view that Sh.
Sandeep (AW-2) was an interested witness and perhaps in sympathy
for the deceased's family had not adverted to the entire facts which,
obtained in the case.
3. I have examined the matter. In my view, the matter principally
veers around the statement of the Loco-Pilot, Sh. Kuldeep Singh and
the weight that the Tribunal put on his statement as against the
testimony of Sh. Sandep (AW-2).
3.1 Having considered the matter, I find it difficult to come to the
conclusion that the Tribunal came to a finding, which was not based
on the material placed before it. There is no perversity in the
appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal. Therefore, in my opinion,
there is no cause for interfering with the impugned judgment.
4. The appeal and the pending application are, accordingly,
dismissed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
OCTOBER 29, 2015
yg
