Delhi High Court
Devi Ram & Anr. vs Union Of India on 19 October, 2016
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: October 19, 2016
+ FAO 210/2016
DEVI RAM & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. D. Sabharwal, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rakesh Mittal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Impugned order of 25th January, 2016 rejects appellants' claim
petition seeking compensation on account of unfortunate death of their
son in a railway accident on 6th April, 2014.
The case put forth by appellants' counsel is that the deceased with
his friend-Rajender was travelling from Okhla to Palwal Railway Station
by EMU Local train on 6th April, 2014 and he had got down at
Ballabhgarh Railway Station to visit his uncle and after taking meals, he
had boarded the train from Ballabhagah Railway Station to Palwal at 6
P.M.. It is the case of appellants that due to heavy rush in the
compartment, the deceased, who was standing near the door of train's
compartment, suddenly fell down from the running train due to heavy
jerk between Ballabhgarh and Asoati Railway Stations. Appellant No.1
had deposed before trial court in support of the claim petition and had
also got the evidence of deceased's friend-Rajender recorded before
learned Tribunal. However, respondent had chosen not to lead any oral
evidence, but had proved the Divisional Railway Manager's (DRM)
Report (Ex.R-1). While adverting to the Rules for break of journey,
learned Tribunal in the impugned order has concluded that since the
deceased was not holding the valid journey ticket at the time of accident,
he cannot be considered to a bona fide passenger of the train in question.
Appellant's stand of deceased sustaining fatal injuries due to fall
from the train has been discarded by the learned Tribunal in the impugned
order while noting that the deceased had boarded the train from
Ballabhgarh at 6.15 P.M. and the distance from Ballabhgarh to Asoati is
10 kilometres and by EMU Local Train, the said distance can be covered
in 9-11 minutes and so, it cannot be believed that the deceased had fallen
from the train at around 8 P.M.. So, the learned Tribunal has discarded
the version put forth by deceased's friend-Rajender.
While referring to the Post-mortem Report (Ex.A-17), learned
Tribunal in the impugned order has concluded that the multiple fractures
sustained by the deceased could not have been possible by fall from a
running train as the body of the deceased was found to be smeared with
grease and it can be possible only when the deceased is struck head on by
the engine of a moving train.
To dismiss appellants' claim petition, learned Tribunal has relied
upon the report of Inspector RPF (Railway Protection Force) enclosed
with the DRM Report (Ex.R-1) which reveals that there was an
unauthorized passage near the site of the accident for going to Subhash
colony by unauthorizedly crossing the railway line and since the deceased
was admittedly at the uncle's place before the accident, therefore, the
possibility of deceased getting hit by the train while unauthorisedly
crossing the railway track cannot be ruled out. Thus, the stand of the
appellants of deceased falling from the running train has been discarded
in the impugned order.
The challenge to impugned order by learned counsel for appellants
is on the ground that the DRM's Report (Ex.R-1) has not been tendered
by any witness and so, it cannot be looked into. It is pointed out that in
DRM's Report (Ex.R-1), it is nowhere recorded that any witness has seen
the deceased unauthorizedly crossing the railway line.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent draws the
attention of this Court to the cross-examination of deceased's friend
(AW-2) to point out that it has come in his evidence that the accident had
taken place near the Ballabhgarh Power House, which is quite near to
Ballabhgarh and it shows that the place of the accident was close to
residence of Mr. Kanha, uncle of the deceased, and so, appellants' stand
of deceased falling from the running train stands belied. So, dismissal of
this appeal is sought by respondent's counsel while submitting that the
impugned order suffers from no infirmity.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order and the evidence
on record, I find that DRM's Report (Ex.R-1) has been tendered in
evidence in the presence of appellants' counsel before the learned
Tribunal and it is pertinent to note that no objection to its exhibition was
taken by appellants' counsel before learned Tribunal. In such a case,
appellants cannot be heard to say that the DRM's Report (Ex.R-1) has not
been duly proved in evidence.
The manner in which the accident in question had taken place, as
detailed by learned Tribunal in the impugned order, clearly depicts that
the multiple injuries were suffered by deceased and that the body of
deceased was smeared with grease, which rules out appellant's version of
deceased falling from a running train. In view of the DRM's Report
(Ex.R-1) and the cross-examination of deceased's friend-Rajender (AW-
2) it becomes evident that the deceased was unauthorizedly crossing the
railway line when he was struck down by a running train.
In the face of the DRM's Report (Ex.R-1), learned Tribunal has
rightly discarded the deposition of deceased's friend-Rajender (AW-2).
The manner in which the accident had taken place can be gathered from
the attending circumstances and need not be always proved by ocular
version. The timing of the accident and the alleged boarding of the train
by deceased do not synchronize and so, learned Tribunal has rightly
concluded that deceased had not boarded the train from Ballabhgarh and
had not fallen from the overcrowded compartment of a moving train due
to sudden jerk. Thus, it is amply clear that the accident in question does
not come within the ambit of Section 123 (c) read with Section 124-A of
the Railways Act.
In view of the aforesaid, I find no substance in this appeal and
since the impugned order is quite reasoned and justified, therefore, this
appeal is dismissed while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 19, 2016
s
