Delhi High Court
Rekha And Anr. vs Union Of India on 14 September, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No.149/2017
% 14th September, 2017
REKHA AND ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. D. Sabharwal, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
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 by the appellants/claimants under
Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the
judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) dated 10.1.2017 by
which the RCT has dismissed the claim petition filed by the
appellants/claimants on the ground that the deceased Sh. Laxman
Singh was not a bonafide passenger. The appellants/claimants filed
the claim petition alleging that the deceased Sh. Laxman Singh while
travelling from New Delhi to New Town, Faridabad on 16.10.2015
met with an untoward incident late in the evening when he boarded the
crowded local EMU train and from which he is said to have fallen
down. The incident in question is alleged to be an untoward incident
and hence compensation is claimed under the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act pursuant to Section 123(c) and Section 124-A of the
Railways Act, 1989.
2. The RCT has held that the deceased was not a bonafide
passenger because no valid train ticket on the date of travel was
proved and nor was any pass proved and which pass ordinarily would
have been purchased by the deceased since he was a regular commuter
between New Delhi and New Town, Faridabad on account of being a
toy seller. The relevant observations of the trial court for holding that
deceased was not a bonafide passenger reads as under:-
"On the issue of whether the deceased was a passenger, it is stated that he
was a daily commuter engaged in the selling of toys. The accident had
taken place where the deceased had fallen out of the train at Okhla Railway
Station. The ticket is said to have been lost as per the averments in the
application. However, if we examine all the documents, it would seem that
immediately after the fall from the train, a mobile phone, diary, cash of
Rs.950/- were recovered from the body. It is inconceivable that a relatively
heavy object that is capable of being popped out of the pocket such as
mobile phone was still around and the ticket alone was selectively lost. The
counsel for the applicant states that the deceased also had a Tiffin box and a
bag and he could have kept the ticket in the bag, which was not recovered
from the spot. If it was a case that he was a commuter, he had a pass & an
identity card, he could have kept them together for safety in some bag.
However, just purchasing a ticket for the day, it is unusual that a person
could have kept it in a bag. If he had kept his other important belongings
such as cell phone, diary and money in his pocket, we are unable to
persuade ourselves that he had a ticket in his bag and reject the case that it
was lost." (underlining added)
3. A reading of the aforesaid discussion of the RCT shows
that RCT has rightly held that in the facts of the present case since
from the body of the deceased a mobile phone, diary as also an
amount of Rs.950/- was recovered, then, there was no reason as to
why a ticket would not have been found on the person of the deceased
if the deceased was travelling after purchasing a valid ticket. RCT has
rightly observed that if a heavy mobile phone did not fall out of the
pocket then there was no reason why the alleged train ticket was only
selectively lost. RCT has also rightly observed that it is unusual that
the deceased had put the cell phone, diary and money in his pocket
and the ticket was allegedly put in a bag which was lost.
4. In law the initial onus to prove that the deceased was a
bonafide passenger lies on the claimants. No doubt, it is not required
that in all cases the ticket of travel must be filed and proved, however,
equally it is true that Courts do not have to presume purchase of a
ticket in all cases of untoward incidents. In the present case, RCT has
given valid reasons for holding that the deceased was not a bonafide
passenger and to which reasoning of RCT I would also like to add that
if the deceased was a daily commuter from New Delhi to New Town,
Faridabad, then such a person would not have a ticket, but, would
have taken a monthly pass and which monthly pass admittedly was not
purchased by the deceased as per the admitted case of the
appellants/claimants.
5. There is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne
