Delhi High Court
Sita Devi And Ors vs Union Of India on 2 June, 2023
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 46/2022
Reserved on: 22.03.2023
Pronounced on: 02.06.2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
SITA DEVI AND ORS. .... Appellants
Through: Ms.Vijay Laxmi, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA .... Respondent
Through: Ms.Ritu Reniwal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 23 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')
passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench in
OA/II(u)/DLI/254/2019 against the order dated 10.02.2021 whereby the
claim application filed by the appellants was dismissed.
2. The brief facts, as culled out from the records, are that in the
application filed before the Tribunal it was claimed that Vinod Kumar
i.e., deceased undertook a train journey on 12.06.2017 from Shahdara to
Faridabad by a local train and when the train reached at KM 1514/13-11
JNC Yard between Faridabad and Tughlaqabad Station, the deceased fell
down from the train on account of sudden jerk and push of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:02.06.2023
18:04:31
passengers and died at the spot. The journey ticket alongwith other
articles of the deceased including his bag were also lost.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal
failed to appreciate the contents of the final report by SHO P.S. GRP,
Faridabad where it has been stated that from enquiry till then,
circumstances at the spot, result of post-mortem, verification by SHO
and statements of witnesses, it was concluded that death had occurred
due to fall from the moving train. It is further submitted that mere non-
recovery of journey ticket would not ipso facto result in dismissal of the
claim application.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has defended the
impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
5. A perusal of the record would show that the first information on
the incident was received in the form of memo of Station Master of
Faridabad Railway Station at about 9:00 am on 12.06.2017. It mentions
about the dead body lying at KM 1514/13-11 and on receipt of
information, ASI Dharamvir Singh, RPF, Faridabad visited the spot and
saw the dead body lying outside the UP line track.
6. Before proceeding further, this Court deems it expedient to refer to
a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi reported
as (2019) 3 SCC 572. The relevant extract of the decision is reproduced
as under:-
"29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the
railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured
or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for
compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence
of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the
claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:02.06.2023
18:04:31
be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an
affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the
Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or
the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with
from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal
position in this regard will stand explained accordingly."
(emphasis added)
7. A perusal of the testimony of Ramkeshwar Ram would show that
he has clearly stated that the deceased had visited his brother-in-law on
11.06.2017 in Taharpur, Shadara, Delhi. The deceased was carrying one
bag of clothes in the morning of 12.06.2017 and the witness had
purchased a ticket from Shahdara Railway Station and made the
deceased sit in the local train for Faridabad. The statement of
Ramkeshwar Ram was disbelieved by the Tribunal on the ground that in
the enquiry during the DRM's Report, he had not stated so. It is pertinent
to note that in the cross-examination, the witness denied giving any
statement to the police. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the
opinion that the appellants were successful in discharging the initial
burden cast upon them.
8. Insofar as whether the incident is covered under the definition of
'untoward incident' as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act,
1989, it is seen that the dead body was discovered lying on the railway
track for which deceased had undertaken the train journey. The DRM
Report was filed after nearly 14 months of the incident and thus need not
be taken into consideration especially in view of the final report
submitted by the SHO, as noted hereinabove. In this regard, this Court
deems it expedient to refer to a decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:02.06.2023
18:04:31
Court in Bhola v. Union of India reported as 2018 SCC OnLine Del
13486.
9. Accordingly, the deceased is held to be a bona fide passenger and
the incident to be an 'untoward incident'. Consequently, the appeal is
allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
10. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for awarding the
amount of compensation in terms of the Act and for which purpose the
matter shall be listed at the first instance before the Tribunal on
10.07.2023. Let the compensation amount be paid to the
appellants/claimants within two weeks thereafter.
11. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
12. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the concerned
Tribunal for information.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
JUNE 02, 2023/v
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:02.06.2023
18:04:31
