Delhi High Court
Bhukni Devi & Ors vs Union Of India on 12 December, 2017
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 12th DECEMBER, 2017
+ FAO 159/2015
BHUKNI DEVI & ORS ..... Appellants
Through : Mr.Anshuman Bal, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Rajeshwar Singh & Mr.L.K.Passi,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (Oral)
1. In the instant appeal filed under Section 23 of Railway
Accident Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the appellants have challenged
the order dated 19.09.2014 of Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal
Bench, Delhi (hereinafter 'Tribunal') whereby their claim petition for
grant of compensation on account of death of Pichhu Bind @ Ficho
Vin was dismissed by the Tribunal.
2. The appellants are the legal heirs - Boni Devi (mother),
Bhukni Devi (widow), Ritesh and Mithlesh (minor sons) and Sharmila
and Reshmi (daughters) of late Pichhu Bind @ Ficho Vin. They filed
claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation amount of
`10 lacs on the ground that Pichhu Bind @ Ficho Vin (since deceased)
was going to Faridabad from Okhla New Delhi Railway Station in an
EMU train on 06.10.2011 against a valid railway ticket No.79893202.
There was heavy rush in the compartment and the deceased stood near
the gate. Due to heavy rush as well as sudden strong jerk of the said
train, the deceased fell down from the moving train and suffered fatal
injuries at KM no. 1505/24-26 platform no.3, FDN Yard. The matter
was reported to GRP, Faridabad (Haryana) vide DD No.46 dated
06.10.2011. Post-mortem examination on the body was conducted at
B.K.Hospital, Faridabad vide post-mortem report No. NIC-
103/BKH/11. It was pleaded that since the victim had died in an
untoward incident due to negligence on the part of the railways, the
appellants were entitled for the compensation.
3. The claim was contested by the railways. It was stated
that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger; he did not die in an
untoward incident. It was a case of run over while unauthorizedly
crossing the railway track and his death was not due to fall from a
running train.
4. The appellants examined Boni Devi and Bhukhni Devi as
AW-1 and AW-2 respectively and proved various documents. The
respondent produced Sarvesh Kumar Gupta as RW-1 and filed DRM
report, copy of Station Diary and TSR marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3.
By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim
application on 19.09.2014. Aggrieved by the said orders, the
appellants have filed the instant appeal.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. It is not disputed that the appellants are the legal
heirs of the deceased. It is also not in controversy that the victim
Pichhu Bind @ Ficho Vin was a bonafide passenger and had
purchased a valid railway ticket bearing No.79893202 found in his
possession at the time of conducting personal search at the spot. Post-
mortem examination on the body was conducted and various injuries
were found on the victim's body. The Tribunal declined the claim to
the appellants primarily on the ground that the EMU in which the
victim was travelling had arrived at Faridabad New Town Railway
Station at 18.19 hours; it left at 18.20 hours. The body of the victim
was recovered / noticed at around 20.40 hours when the matter was
reported to GRP Faridabad vide DD No.46. The Tribunal was of the
opinion that the fall had not taken place from EMU and it was
unbelievable that the body would remain unnoticed for more than two
hours at the spot. The Tribunal was also of the view that the injuries
sustained by the victim were not due to fall as death report (Ex.A-9)
indicated that the face was crushed, skull broken and brain matter had
come out. The post-mortem report (Ex.A-11) recorded that the body
was brought in multiple pieces. All such injuries were not possible
due to fall; he was hit by a fast moving train and sustained injuries.
6. The findings of the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained
on both these counts. It has not been investigated by the respondent as
to on which particular train the deceased was travelling on the strength
of ticket No.79893202 found in his possession at the time of search of
the body at the spot. It was also not verified if the deceased had not
sustained injuries due to fall from the EMU in which he was
purportedly travelling, or else which particular train had crushed the
victim. No credible evidence has come on record to infer as to since
when the body of the victim was lying at the spot. As per the DRM
report placed on record by the railways and the statement of RW-1
Sarvesh Kumar Gupta, he was informed about the body lying at the
spot near platform No.3 in IIIrd line at KM No. 1505/24-26 by the
driver of TKD goods train on walky-talky. The goods train arrived on
IIIrd line at Faridabad New Town Railway Station at 20.37 hours. It
has, however, not come on record to establish as to since when the
said body was lying at the spot before it was noticed by the driver of
the TKD goods train. The said driver of the TKD goods train has not
been examined by the railways. Merely because the dead body
remained unnoticed for about two hours as alleged, it cannot be
inferred that the victim had not died due to fall from the EMU in
which he was travelling. It was not the case of the railways as to by
which train the victim was run over, and if so, at what time.
7. The other findings that the injuries were not possible due
to fall also are based upon conjectures and surmises. The impugned
judgment records that death report (Ex.A-9) recorded that the injuries
appeared to have been caused by train and the cause of death was
opined to be fall from train. No opinion was taken by the railways
from the doctor conducting post-mortem examination if the injuries
sustained by the victim were due to being run over by a train. The
body had not been cut into two halves to infer that the injuries
sustained were not due to fall.
8. Conflicting and inconsistent suggestions have been put to
AW-1 (Boni Devi) regarding the cause of victim's death. It was
suggested that the victim did not have a valid railway ticket; he was
not travelling by the train and was not a bonafide passenger. It was
suggested that he was run over by some train because of his own fault
while crossing the railway line. Again, it was suggested that the
victim sustained injuries which were self inflicted during a suicidal
attempt. No such plea has been established by the railways.
9. In view of the findings above, the impugned judgment
declining claim to the appellants cannot be sustained and is set aside.
The appellants who are the legal heirs of the deceased shall be entitled
to statutory compensation of `8 lacs with interest @ 7% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 14.12.2011.
10. The claimants shall remain present on 23rd January, 2018.
11. List on 23rd January, 2018 for further directions as to how
much compensation is to be paid to each of the claimants.
12. Copy of the order be given 'dasti.'
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 12, 2017 / tr
