Delhi High Court
Sudama Devi & Anr. vs Union Of India on 29 May, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 112/2017
% 29th May, 2017
SUDAMA DEVI & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. N.K.Gupta, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Preet Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
CM No. 8647/2017 (delay of 30 days in filing the appeal)
For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 30 days in
filing the appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
FAO No. 112/2017
1. This first appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987 is filed impugning the judgment of the Railway
Claims Tribunal dated 18.10.2016 dismissing the claim petition filed
by the appellants/applicants.
2. The facts of the case as pleaded by the appellants are that
the deceased Manoj Kumar, who was the son and brother of the
appellants/applicants, was travelling from New Delhi to Shakurbasti by
EMU Train No.64013 on 10.5.2014. It is pleaded that the deceased
had purchased a ticket and he was standing at the gate of the
compartment and he fell down near Punjabi Bagh flyover due to jerk
and jostling of the passengers. The deceased was declared brought
dead to the hospital where he was brought by a PCR van.
3. The only issue which is called for decision in this case is
as to whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger i.e whether the
deceased had purchased a train ticket for travel from New Delhi to
Shakurbasti. In this regard the Railway Claims Tribunal has held that
the deceased was not a bonafide passenger because no train ticket was
recovered from the person of the deceased although various other
documents were recovered being the identity card, PAN Card, Voter
I.D Card, Driving Licence, ATM Card, etc. The relevant paras of the
judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal on this issue of the deceased
being or not a bonafide passenger, i.e whether he had purchased a train
ticket, are paras 1 and 2 and which read as under:-
"1. On the issue of whether the deceased was a passenger, admittedly
no ticket was recovered but it was contended that he had purchased a ticket
for a local train for travel from Palwal to Shakurbasti. The contention was
that the ticket must have been lost.
2. There could be several circumstances where the loss of the ticket
could be established from the circumstances. While possession of ticket is a
positive fact, loss of ticket is negative evidence that can be brought from only
circumstances. The attempt of the applicants was that the deceased had
informed them by telephone that he had purchased a ticket and that he was
going to Shakurbasti. We find this to be wholly artificial for a daily
commuter to part with the information with his mother that he had just
purchased the ticket and boarded the train. The circumstance which we hold
against the applicants is that in the Report given by the Police, a reference is
made to the fact that they have recovered the Identity Card, PAN Card, Voter
I.D.Card, Driving license, ATM Card, two photographs and a slip with a
mobile number. It was not as if the body had been found with the things
scattered and the ticket could have been lost. It was not again an incident of
a death in the dark hours of the night and the body lying for a long period
when there could have been tempering with any of the personal possessions
of the deceased. If it was not a lonely place, there was not even a chance of
tempering with anything. As much as we would like to stretch the situation
to accommodate that the deceased was a passenger so long as there is a legal
requirement under Section 2(29) of the Railways Act that a passenger must
be a person with a valid ticket or pass, we ought to be looking either for the
ticket or proper explanation for loss of a ticket. The first situation does not
exist and the second situation does not present itself with the circumstances
that could normally exist. If every item that should be found on a person
along with his belongings could be identified and recovered, a ticket which
ought to have been normally in the same place where all the personal effects
were clinging on to body alone was nussubg, it is difficult for us to accept
that he was a bonafide passenger in the manner required to be proved.
Evidently, there was no one who actually saw him purchasing a ticket. If he
was working in a responsible establishment as it is made out to be and that he
was a regular commuter, at least one would expect what is probable in such a
situation of a person having a Monthly Season Ticket. We have no means of
even assessing that he was a regular commuter between the same
destinations. If he was working as a foreman in a prominent Public Limited
Company, evidence of destination as a place of his work where he used to
commute everyday would have also been helpful. We do not have such
cogent information to help us determine that he was a passenger. We hold
the issue against the applicants." (underlining added)
4. No doubt, as argued on behalf of the appellants/applicants,
it is not necessary that in every case a train ticket must be recovered
before it is held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, however,
every case depends upon the facts of each case as to whether or not it
should be held in favour of the deceased that he had purchased a
railway ticket. In the present case, there is no evidence of any eye
witnesses of the deceased having purchased a train ticket and it is also
seen that various articles were recovered from the person of the
deceased, but no train ticket was recovered. Also, I do not find it
illogical for the Railway Claims Tribunal to observe that if the
deceased was a regular passenger then he ought to have a monthly pass
and hence there would be no question of purchasing a daily train ticket.
Though learned counsel for the appellants argued that the deceased did
not regularly travel by train, however not only there is anything to
substantiate this aspect, the fact of the matter is also that if deceased
used to undertake train journey then there is no reason why for the train
journeys regularly undertaken for going to his office/official work a
monthly pass which is most convenient as also cheap was not
purchased.
5. If a dead body is found without a train ticket then this
would not mean that this Court or the Railway Claims Tribunal has to
hold in all cases that the deceased had purchased a train ticket. In the
facts of the present case there is no illegality committed by the Railway
Claims Tribunal in holding that the deceased was not a bonafide
passenger inasmuch as no train ticket was recovered from the person of
the deceased as also from the articles found with the deceased at the
time of recovery of the body.
6. Dismissed.
MAY 29, 2017/ib VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
