Delhi High Court
Sona & Anr vs Union Of India on 28 September, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 308/2015
SONA & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Mr Anshuman Bal, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 28.09.2015
CM No. 21252/2015 (Exemption)
1. Allowed subject to just exceptions.
FAO 308/2015 & CM No. 21253/2015 (Condonation of delay)
2. This is an appeal whereby challenge is laid to the order of the Railway
Claims Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) dated 12.03.2015. It is the case of
the appellants before this court that, on 15.02.2011, the husband of appellant
no.1, one, Balbir Singh, was travelling from Ismaila to Rohtak by 3 DJ
Passenger train. Due to heavy rush in the train, he was standing near the
gate, and on account of a sudden jerk, he fell and received fatal injuries.
Consequently, the husband of appellant no.1 (i.e. Balbir Singh) succumbed
to his injuries.
3. It is in this background, that appellant no.1 and appellant no.2, the son
of the deceased (i.e. Mr Balbir Singh) filed a petition before the Tribunal.
Though, according to the respondents, no railway ticket was discovered,
appellant no.1 had filed a copy of the ticket (Ex. AW1/12) before the
Tribunal.
4. To be noted, in the DRM report generated by the respondent, at page
5, it was indicated that ticket no. 90911 dated 15.02.2011, was issued for the
journey from Ismaila to Rohtak.
5. The Tribunal, on its part, vide the impugned judgement, essentially,
rejected the claim made by the appellants before it based on the statement of
the train driver, one, Mr Niyamat Singh, and that of the guard, namely, Mr
Thakurdeen.
5.1 The statement of Mr Niyamat Singh, which is dated 15.02.2011, and
that of Mr Thakurdeen, which is dated 16.03.2011, and are recorded at pages
30 and 31 of the DRM report, are suggestive of the fact that the husband of
appellant no.1 (i.e. Balbir Singh), committed suicide. The extracts of the
statements made are recorded verbatim, as appearing in vernacular language,
in paragraphs 9 & 10 of the impugned judgement.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant says that these are statements
recorded one month after the death of Mr. Balbir Singh and, therefore,
cannot be relied upon. It is further submitted that the statement of the guard
Thakurdeen is based on the information given by the driver.
7. According to me, in so far as the statement of the driver is concerned,
it can be relied upon as it is an eye witness statement. The period between
the date of the death and the date on which the statement of the driver was
recorded, is exactly one month. That period cannot be said to be a period
which would have dimmed his memory, especially, when, it relates to an act
of suicide.
7.1 Furthermore, no animus can be attributed to the driver in making the
statement, which he did, before the relevant authority.
8. Faced with this, the learned counsel for the appellants, during the
course of the argument, did concede that the appellants should have asked
for the production of the witness if they wished to cross-examine him.
Admittedly, no such application was moved.
9. In these circumstances, I find no error in the judgement of the
Tribunal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The application for
condonation of delay is, accordingly, rendered infructuous. The said
application is also, therefore, dismissed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
SEPTEMBER 28, 2015
kk
