Delhi High Court
Mohd. Ismail vs Union Of India on 30 May, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 121/2017
% 30th May, 2017
MOHD. ISMAIL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. V.N. Jha, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rohit Dutta, Advocate for
Mr. Joydeep Mazumdar, Advocate for
Northern Railways.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This first appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987 is filed against the judgment of the Railway Claims
Tribunal dated 5.10.2016 which has dismissed the claim petition filed
by the appellants/applicants. The claim petition was filed on account
of death of Mohd. Yakoob on 19.8.2014.
2. The facts of the case as pleaded by the
appellants/applicants are that the deceased Mohd. Yakoob after
purchasing of a valid journey ticket was travelling by Toofan Express
Train from New Delhi to Behraich. That when the train reached Itawa
the train took a sudden jerk which resulted in the deceased falling out
of the moving train and he died as a result of the untoward incident.
The claim petition was hence filed by the appellants/applicants, and
who are the parents and children of the deceased.
3. The Railway Claims Tribunal below has dismissed the
claim petition by observing that the appellants/applicants are only
entitled to compensation if it was first found that the deceased was a
bonafide passenger having purchased a valid train ticket, and it has
been found that no ticket was found on the person of the deceased.
The Railway Claims Tribunal has also held that there was no proof that
the deceased died on account of fall from the train and in fact the
deceased was found in an injured condition with legs amputated by the
3008 Express Train on eastern side of the platform near the pathway.
The relevant observations of the Railway Claims Tribunal for
dismissing of the claim petition read as under:-
"No ticket was found on the person of the deceased. Deceased was found in
an injured condition with legs amputated by 3008 Express train on Eastern
side of the platform near the pathway as per Station Master's Memo and died
after reaching the hospital. Applicants could not produce any evidence of the
deceased travelling on the train in question. If the deceased fell at Itawa
railway station and as per exhibit A-3, inquiry report of police, he was
resident of Behraich. When informed by the police about the death of Shri
Yakoob, his elder brother informed that he is a heart patient, , his father is
100 years old, wife of the deceased has predeceased him and whereabouts of
his children are not known. He said that they cannot come to take over the
dead body and that body may be buried as per their customs. One bag was
found with the dead body but no ticket recovery is mentioned anywhere.
Although GRP documents conclude fall from the train, but they are all based
on presumption and not on any evidence. It is also surprising that family
could come to Police Station 2 to 3 weeks after the death to collect
information but did not bother about the last rites of the deceased. The
learned counsel for the respondent brought out discrepancies in various
documents. Whereas as per application, the deceased died on 19.8.14, but
the family came to police station to find out the details of accident on 6.9.14.
but, in the cross-examination of AW-1, Shri Mohd Ismail, father of the
deceased stated that he came to police station on 31.8.14. The father of the
deceased is said to be 100 years old but as per election identity card he is
only 70 years old and as per passport, he is 80 years old. Perhaps this is not
material. The name of the daughter, applicant No. 3 was also not matching
and amended later from Huma Bano to Huma Begum. AW-1 stated her
name as Huma Bano in his evidence, but the name in the Aadhar Card (only
photocopy, original not produced) is Huma Begum. This also may be
discarded as not very material if all the discrepancy was with regard to the
name, but she is shown as 33 years old as per the photocopy of Aadhar Card,
but she is stated to be 17.6 years as per the application and certificates of
ADM, exhibit A-5. The whereabouts of children of the deceased were stated
to be not known, as per their uncle (Ex.A-3)
In view of the facts brought out above, it is held that the deceased was not a
bona fide passenger and the case is not proved to be a fall from the train, as
alleged in the claim application. Even the dependents are doubtful due to
discrepancies in their names, ages etc. Both these issues are decided against
the applicants."
4. Once, admittedly no train ticket is recovered, in my
opinion, in the facts of the present case the Railway Claims Tribunal
was justified in holding that the deceased was not a bonafide
passenger. No doubt, in all cases it is not that a train ticket is
recovered whenever there is an untoward incident, however, it depends
on the facts of each case as to whether the deceased was or was not a
bonafide passenger travelling after purchasing a valid train ticket. In
the present case, in any of the clothes which the deceased was wearing
at the time of the accident no ticket was found. Not only there is no
evidence of purchase of any train ticket, but it is also found that there is
no evidence whatsoever of the deceased dying on account of fall from
the train. It is seen that the legs of the deceased were amputated and he
was lying near the pathway of the platform and which indicates that it
is possible that the deceased was trying to cross the tracks and which
resulted in his legs being run over by the train and which were
amputated and he therefore died as a result of the accident. More
importantly, it is noted by the Railway Claims Tribunal that the family
of the deceased came to the Police Station only after two-three weeks
of the death to collect information and that the family did not even
bother about the last rites of the deceased and the railway office was
asked to do the last rites of the deceased. The deceased died on
19.8.2014 and the family came to the Police Station to find out about
the details of the accident only on 31.8.2014/6.9.2014. There is no
evidence of any eye witness of the deceased falling down from the
train, and which is a sine qua non for holding that there is an untoward
incident in terms of Section 123(c) read with Section 124A of the
Railways Act, 1989.
5. I may note that the Railways Claims Tribunal has also
made some observations with respect to confusion existing with
respect to relations of the appellants/applicants with the deceased
because of variance of names, however, this Court need not go into this
aspect because it is not proved in the facts of the case that the deceased
was a bonafide passenger travelling on a train after purchasing a valid
train ticket and that in any case it is not proved that the deceased died
on account of fall from a train. The factum with respect to the legs of
the deceased being amputated and who was found lying near the
pathway near the platform is an indication that possibly the deceased
was trying to cross the tracks and which resulted in his accident with a
train causing amputation of his legs and hence his death.
6. No grounds are made out for interference in the impugned
judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal.
7. Dismissed.
MAY 30, 2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
AK
