Ruveda Khatun & Ors. vs Union Of India
2017 Latest Caselaw 6549 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          FAO No. 319/2017

%                                                17th November, 2017

RUVEDA KHATUN & ORS.                                  ..... Appellants
                 Through:                 Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv.
                           versus

UNION OF INDIA                                        ..... Respondent

                           Through:      Ms. Shipra Shukla, Adv.

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 is filed under Section 23 of the Railway

Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Railway

Claims Tribunal dated 7.2.2017, by which the Railway Claims

Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant on two

counts. First count is that the deceased Md. Moajjan was not proved

to be a bonafide passenger travelling on a valid ticket and secondly

that there is no proof of fall from the train.

2. In my opinion this appeal is liable to be dismissed on the

ground that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger because no

doubt it is not necessary that in all cases a ticket must be found so as

to establish that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, however, the

facts of each case have to be examined as to whether the deceased was

a bonafide passenger. Admittedly from the person of the deceased a

mobile was recovered as also two bags containing old clothes were

found near the body of the deceased, but neither in the bags nor on the

person of the deceased any ticket was recovered. Therefore the

Railway Claims Tribunal was justified in arriving at a finding that

there was no reason why if the deceased had purchased the ticket the

same would not have been recovered from the person of the deceased

or from his clothes or from his bags. I therefore completely agree with

the findings of the Railway Claims Tribunal that the deceased was not

proved to be a bonafide passenger.

3. In my opinion the deceased also cannot be held to be a

bonafide passenger by holding that he had purchased a ticket because

it is seen that in the claim petition and the evidence led it is not

mentioned that why the deceased was travelling from New Delhi to

Ballabgarh and during which journey he is said to have fallen down

between Faridabad and New Faridabad Town. Counsel for the

appellant argues orally that the deceased was going to meet his brother

at Ballabhgarh, however, I am indeed very surprised at such an

argument inasmuch as there is no pleading and evidence led by the

appellant/claimant that the deceased was going from New Delhi to

Ballabhgarh to meet his brother.

4. It is also to be noted that the distance of travel is very

short from New Delhi to Ballabhgarh. On long distance travel when a

person is travelling with family or for other circumstances, Courts do

infer, depending on facts of each case, that the deceased would be a

bonafide passenger even if no ticket is recovered, however once there

is short period of travel such as from New Delhi to Ballabgarh, it

cannot be presumed that the deceased had purchased a ticket for

travelling from New Delhi to Ballabgarh.

5. There is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.

NOVEMBER 17, 2017/ib/Ne                     VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J