Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Habib & Anr. on 24 July, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 308/2017
% 24th July, 2017
UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.S. Dateer, Advocate
versus
HABIB & ANR. ..... Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No. 25925/2017 (for delay)
For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 22 days
in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
C.M.Nos. 25923/2017 & 25924/2017 (for exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
Both the applications stand disposed of.
FAO No. 308/2017 & C.M. No. 25922/2017 (for stay)
1. This first appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987 impugns the judgment of the Railway Claims
Tribunal dated 04.01.2017 by which the Railway Claims Tribunal has
allowed the claim petition filed by the respondents/claimants for grant
of statutory compensation on account of death of Yasin son of Habib.
The respondents/claimants are the parents of the deceased Yasin.
2. The facts of the case are that there was marriage of
brother of the deceased which was also attended by mausi of the
deceased namely Smt. Bundo. On 27.03.2015, when the deceased
along with Smt. Bundo and her family members were returning to
their home at Delhi, the deceased Yasin also came along with Smt.
Bundo and her family members. They purchased the journey tickets
bearing no.18152145 and 18152146 and boarded the EMU train from
Khurja junction for Delhi. The train was overcrowded and on account
of a sudden and heavy jerk in the train, and on account of push of the
passengers, the deceased Yasin fell from the train between poll
no.10/23 and 10/25 near Sahibabad. The relatives of the deceased
pulled the chain but the train did not stop. Therefore, they got down
from the train at Vivek Vihar Railway Station and reached the place of
accident where Yasin was found to have died. The police was
informed. DD no.12 dated 27.03.2015 was lodged and investigation
proceedings were conducted.
3. The appellant contested the case and denied that the
deceased was a bonafide passenger. It is also pleaded that the victim
must have met with the fatal accident due to his own criminal
negligence.
4. There are two issues which arise in the present case with
respect to the deceased being a bonafide passenger and whether the
deceased had died on account of falling from the train and there was
no criminal negligence on the part of the deceased.
5. So far as the issue of the deceased being a bonafide
passenger, the Railway Claims Tribunal has rightly held the deceased
as the bonafide passenger inasmuch as the original ticket was proved
as Ex.A1. Also, the certified copy of the inquest report Ex.A3, shows
that the deceased had died on account of falling from the train. The
Railway Claims Tribunal has therefore rightly arrived at a finding that
the deceased was a bonafide passenger and hence there is no reason to
interfere with the impugned judgment holding the deceased to be a
bonafide passenger.
6. The next aspect is as to whether the deceased had died on
account of an untoward incident or the deceased had died on account
of his own criminal negligence. The Railway Claims Tribunal in this
regard has given a finding that no evidence was led by the appellant
showing criminal negligence and hence there is no basis for arriving at
a finding that the deceased was hanging out of the train. To this
finding of the Railway Claims Tribunal, I would like to add that there
is no evidence led by the appellant of any eye witness that the
deceased was hanging out of the gate of the train and therefore was
struck by the poll. I therefore completely agree with the conclusion of
the Railway Claims Tribunal because once no evidence was led by the
appellant to show that the deceased died on account of his own
criminal negligence, it has to be held that the deceased died in an
untoward incident.
7. The law in this regard is clear and it is held by the
Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijay
Kumar & Others (2008) 9 SCC 527 and Jameela & Others vs. Union
of India (2010) 12 SCC 443 that even if a passenger is guilty of
negligence yet compensation has to be awarded and that compensation
cannot be awarded only if it is proved that the deceased died due to his
own criminal negligence or death was on account of self-inflicted
injury as provided under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
8. There is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.
JULY 24, 2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
rb
