Delhi High Court
Salma & Ors vs Union Of India on 8 January, 2018
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : NOVEMBER 23, 2017
DECIDED ON : JANUARY 08, 2018
+ FAO 257/2015
SALMA & ORS
..... Appellants
Through : Mr.Kartikay Sharma, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA
..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Amitava Poddar, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P GARG, J.
1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section
23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 to challenge the legality
and correctness of an order dated 08.05.2015 whereby their claim
petition to award compensation was dismissed. The appeal is contested
by the respondent.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file.
3. Claim petition was filed by the appellants before the Railway
Claims Tribunal (hereinafter 'the Tribunal') on 19.09.2013. It was
averred that on 02.04.2013 the deceased Kayyum was travelling from
Delhi Railway Station to Nangloi Railway Station in D.J. passenger
train. The deceased stood in the gallery of the train compartment near
the gate. The train crossed Mangolpuri Railway Station and reached at
Mangolpuri underpass near a liquor shop. Due to sudden jerk and push
of the crowd, the deceased fell down from the running train and
sustained injuries. He was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital
where he was declared 'brought dead'. It was further averred that the
deceased had a wallet containing `3,000/-, railway journey ticket, hand
bag and some documents which he got misplaced.
4. The claim petition was contested by the respondent and it was
averred that the victim was not a bonafide passenger. The deceased
suffered self-inflicted injuries due to his own negligent act. The claim
is not protected under Section 124 (3) of the Railways Act, 1989. It
was not a case of accidental fall. The investigation report and other
supporting documents suggested that the deceased entered the railway
premises unauthorizedly and sustained injuries while crossing railway
lines.
5. The appellant-Salma examined herself as AW-1. After
considering the rival contentions of the parties and on appreciating the
evidence on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition
solely on the ground that the victim was not a bonafide passenger due to
non-availability of the ticket in his possession.
6. It is not in dispute that the victim sustained injuries on
02.04.2013 when he was travelling in a train from Delhi Railway
Station to Nangloi Railway Station. The information about the incident
was conveyed promptly and DD No.21PP came to be recorded at 7.45
p.m. at Police Post Kishan Ganj Railway Station, Delhi. The daily dairy
(DD) was recorded on the information received from PCR. In this DD
entry, there is a specific mention that at Mangolpuri underpass near a
liquor shop, a boy had fallen from the train and was injured. DD
No.22PP came to be recorded at 8.20 p.m. at Police Post Kishan Ganj
Railway Station when Duty Constable Vijay informed about the
admission of the victim Kayyum at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital at
8.20 p.m. The investigation was assigned to SI Braham Dev who
conducted the proceedings and recorded therein that the victim had
fallen from the train. Statement of his cousin Mujahid Khan was also
recorded. He too informed that the victim was travelling along with him
in the train and had fallen from the train. The post-mortem report
records the alleged history whereby the victim had sustained injuries
due to fall from the train. Nothing is on record to show that the victim
had sustained injuries while crossing the lines, as urged.
7. It is relevant to note that information to the railways authority
was also given without any delay by some daily passengers that an
individual was lying injured near 'ganda nala' who was travelling in DJ
passenger train and memo in this regard was issued by SS/NNO.
8. Non-recovery of the ticket is not always fatal; it is the appellant's
case that the wallet which the deceased was carrying was misplaced.
Though there is no cogent evidence on record, however, denial of the
claim compensation for non-recovery of the railway ticket alone cannot
be sustained. In Union of India vs. Durga Devi MANU/DE/2821/2014,
this Court observed that it is not unknown that train tickets, in
considerable number of cases, get lost when the passenger falls from a
running train.
9. In the instance case there seems no malafide as the victim's wife
was not present at the spot to concoct a false story. Mujahid Khan
could not be produced before the Tribunal as he was lodged in jail for
the last about one year in a dacoity case. This fact came to the
knowledge of the Tribunal during the proceedings and no efforts were
made to secure his presence to record his statement. Claimants are the
wife and children of the victim and they lived far away at a place in
District Bijnore (U.P.). The police officials had no ulterior motive to
manipulate the documents prepared at first instance and to falsely claim
that the victim had fallen from the train.
10. In view of the above discussion, the findings of the learned
Tribunal cannot be sustained.
11. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed and
the impugned order dated 08.05.2015 is set aside. The appellants being
the legal heirs of the deceased shall be entitled to have a statutory
compensation of `8,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim application.
12. List the matter before Roster Bench on 30th January, 2018 for
further directions regarding disbursement of the claim to the legal heirs
of the deceased in a specific proportion. For that purpose, the claimants
shall appear before the Roster Bench and shall produce the proof of
their age to ascertain as to in what manner and by what mode the claim
is to be apportioned amongst them.
13. Copy of the order be given 'dasti' to the parties.
S.P.GARG
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 08, 2018/sa
