Delhi High Court
Sunita Devi & Anr. vs Union Of India on 21 November, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 211/2016
% 21st November, 2017
SUNITA DEVI & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. D. Sabharwal, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Suvira Lal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
FAO No. 211/2016 and C.M. Appl. No. 34416/2016 (for delay)
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 15.7.2015 by which the Railway Claims
Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants for
seeking statutory compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- on account of death
of Sh. Girish Babu who was the husband and father of the claimant
nos. 1 and 2/appellant nos. 1 and 2.
2. The facts pleaded by the appellants were that the
deceased Sh. Girish Babu was travelling on 13.9.2010 from Agra
Cantt to Nizamuddin Railway Station Delhi and he died on account of
fall from the train between Palwal Railway Station and Aswati
Railway Station. The accident was pleaded to be an 'untoward
incident' as per Sections 123(c) and 124A of the Railways Act and
hence the claim petition was filed. It may be noted that in the claim
petition appellants pleaded that the deceased Sh. Girish Babu had gone
to Village Pilakhatra in District Ita, Uttar Pradesh for meeting his
mother and thereafter he had travelled from District Ita to Agra and
from where the train journey was to commence of the deceased to
Nizamuddin Railway Station at Delhi.
3. On the issue that whether the deceased was a bonafide
passenger and hence the appellants/claimants were entitled to
compensation, Railway Claims Tribunal has rightly held that no train
ticket was found from the person of the deceased although some slip
of paper containing a mobile number was found and hence the
deceased was not a bonafide passenger. No doubt, in all cases filing
and proving of a train ticket is not necessary, but initial onus always
lies upon the claimants to satisfy the court that the deceased was
travelling on a train and was a bonafide passenger after having
purchased a valid train ticket. In cases where the deceased is
travelling with family on a long distance train or there are other
circumstances to believe that a train ticket would have been
purchased, courts do draw a presumption of the deceased being a
bonafide passenger even if a train ticket is not recovered, however, it
is not the law that in all cases a presumption must be drawn of
purchase of a railway ticket by the deceased. In the present case in my
opinion Railway Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the
appellants/claimants failed to prove the factum with respect to the
deceased having purchased a train ticket and therefore the deceased
was not a bonafide passenger. There is no illegality or perversity in
such findings for this Court as an appellate court to set aside such
findings.
4. Railway Claims Tribunal has referred to the fact that in
Column 7 of claim petition filed by the appellants there was a mention
of a journey ticket no. 85928253 of travel from Faridabad to New
Delhi Railway Station and which obviously was false because the
deceased was said to be travelling from Agra to Nizamuddin Railway
Station at New Delhi. Counsel for the appellants/claimants argue that
there is a typing mistake in Column 7 but I cannot accept this fact
because this averment is made in the very beginning at the time of
filing of the claim petition. In any case, even if we take that this
averment was made by mistake of a particular train ticket from
Faridabad to New Delhi instead of ticket being from Agra to New
Delhi, yet, the appellants/claimants had to prove that the deceased was
a bonafide passenger on account of having purchased a valid train
ticket but this the appellants/claimants failed to prove including
because of the reason that there is no deposition that anyone including
appellant no. 1/claimant no.1 saw the deceased purchasing the train
ticket.
5. In my opinion, once the deceased was not abona fide
passenger, the appellants/claimants hence could not be granted the
statutory compensation for an 'untoward incident'.
6. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
NOVEMBER 21, 2017AK VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
