Devkala Devi & Ors vs Union Of India
2017 Latest Caselaw 4513 Del

$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                 Date of Decision:28th August, 2017

+      FAO 46/2015

       DEVKALA DEVI & ORS                              ..... Appellants
                    Through:          Mr. S.R. Kamat, Advocate

                         versus

       UNION OF INDIA                                   ..... Respondent
                     Through:         Mr.Joydeep Mazumdar, lead counsel
                                      Northern Railways with Mr.Debojyoti
                                      Bhattacharya, Mr. Mamota C.
                                      Bhattacharya, Mr.Kamlesh Kumar,
                                      Advocates
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

                           JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. The appellants have challenged the order dated 14 th November, 2014 whereby their application for compensation has been dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal.

2. The appellants filed an application for compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal claiming that Subalal Kamat fell down from a running train No.18238 from Hazarat Nizamuddin to Mathura near Ashram Flyover and died on the spot. According to the appellants deceased, Subalal Kamat accidentally fell down from the over-crowded general second class compartment of the train near Ashram flyover.

3. The Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was run over by an

unidentified train. The Tribunal further held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and was not travelling in the alleged train.

4. The record of the Railway Claims Tribunal has seen. The record contains a photograph in which the body of the deceased has been cut at the waist level and the head of the deceased is in the middle of the track and the legs are outside the track. The photograph clearly reveals that it is not a case of accidental falling from the train but a case of run over by the train as otherwise the body of the deceased could not have been cut into two halves, one of which is lying inside the railway track and other lying outside the track. The cutting of the body into two pieces is possible only when a person either commits suicide or is run over.

5. This Court agrees with the learned Claims Tribunal that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and was not travelling in the alleged train. This Court further agrees with the learned Claims Tribunal that it is a case of run over and the appellants are not entitled to compensation.

6. The appeal is dismissed.

AUGUST 28, 2017                                         J.R. MIDHA, J.
dk