Delhi High Court
Rukmani vs Union Of India on 17 November, 2023
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 06 November 2023
Judgment pronounced on: 17 November 2023
+ FAO 503/2017
RUKMANI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ravi Sabharwal, Adv
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. J. K. Tripathi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
1. This judgement shall decide an appeal preferred by the
appellant, who is wife of the deceased. The deceased is alleged to
have died in an untoward accident involving a train, and the appeal is
instituted under Section 23 of The Railways Act, 19891 directed
against the judgment dated 29.05.2017 passed by the Ld. Presiding
Officer, the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench („RCT‟) in OA
(IIu) No. 2001-2016, whereby the claim petition was dismissed.
2. Briefly stating, a claim petition was filed by the appellant
seeking compensation of Rs.8 lakhs with interest from the date of
accident involving the death of one Moti Chand, husband of the
1 The Act
Signature Not Verified
FAO 503/2017
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:17.11.2023
15:29:08
appellant, arising out of a train accident on 19.10.2016. The incident
happened between 6:00 a.m. to 7:20 a.m. within the jurisdiction of PS
Saini, District Kaushambi, State of UP. It is pertinent to mention that
the learned RCT framed the issues, which are as under:-
"1) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger on 19.5.16 on
board the train in question at the relevant time of the incident?
2) Whether the death of the deceased was on account of an
accidental amounting to an untoward incident, as claimed in the
claim application?
3) Whether the applicants are the dependants of the deceased
within the meaning of Section 123 (b) of the Railways Act, 1989?
4) To what amount of compensation, if any, are the applicants
entitled?
5) Relief, if any?"
3. Although the claim of the appellant/wife was supported by AW-
2 Ram Bahadur S/o Bhrigurasan aged about 38 years, learned RCT
did not find his version to be inspiring confidence, and therefore,
found that the burden of proving that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger had not been discharged. As regards Issue No.2, it was
found that the nature of injuries opined in the post mortem report did
commensurate with the accidental fall from the train, and therefore,
the death of the victim did result on account of an "untoward
incident". Issue No.3 was answered in favour of the claimant.
However, in light of the decision on Issue No. 1, the claim petition
was dismissed.
GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGE
4. The impugned judgment dated 29.05.2017 passed by the
learned RCT has been assailed in the present appeal inter alia on the
grounds that:
Signature Not Verified
FAO 503/2017
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:17.11.2023
15:29:08
(a) it was not disputed anywhere that the deceased was
travelling by train; and
(b) that the findings in the initial police report as well as inquest
report conducted at the spot confirmed the fact that the deceased had
an accidental fall from a running train;
(c) that the injuries that were reflected on the body of the
deceased in the post-mortem too showed that the deceased had fallen
from a running train; and
(d) that the learned RCT completely mis-appreciated the
categorical testimony of AW-2, who stated, that the deceased was
offered a berth which he declined and instead purchased his ticket for
travelling in general compartment as he would have to pay the fine.
5. Notice of the present appeal has been issued to the respondent.
No reply is filed. However, the appeal is opposed.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal
of the record, at the outset the impugned judgment dated 29.05.2017
cannot be sustained in law.
7. Succinctly, it can be stated that, the learned RCT did not believe
the version of AW-2 on the ground that although he testified that his
father had returned the bag / luggage of the deceased to the family of
the deceased on the next day of the accident, there was a patent
contradiction as the claimant / appellant in her claim petition had inter
alia made an averment that the luggage of her husband was missing.
Learned RCT further opined that it was very unlikely that AW-2 saw
the witness buying a ticket and no ticket was found on the person of
Signature Not Verified
FAO 503/2017
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:17.11.2023
15:29:08
the deceased.
8. A careful perusal of the testimony of AW-1 / appellant shows
that the deceased was travelling to Delhi from Meharva in the general
compartment in Licchavi Express. Further, a purposeful analysis of
the testimony of AW-2 corroborates with that of AW-1. It was
deposed by AW-2 that on 18.05.2016 he was returning to Delhi from
Meharva by Licchavi Express with his parents; that he had confirmed
tickets in Boggy No. S-9 and S-1 respectively; and that he occupied
berth no. 34 in Boggy No. S-9 whereas his parents were supposed to
be in Boggy S-1 but his mother cancelled her journey for certain
reasons. AW-2 further testified that when he reached the Meharva
Station with his father at about 9:30 am, after 10-15 minutes, he met
the deceased Moti Chand and while having a conversation with him it
transpired to him, that he did not have a confirmed ticket and that
although AW-2 offered to buy a ticket for him after paying the
requisite fine, he declined and instead purchased a rail ticket for
travelling in the general compartment for himself but handed over his
luggage i.e., one small bag to him.
9. It is uncontroverted testimony of AW-2 that he had tea with the
deceased when the train halted for 20 to 30 minutes at Allahabad
Railway Station. He then also testified that when the train reached
Delhi, he alongwith his father waited for Moti Chand for a while but
since the latter did not turn up, they left the Railway Station to reach
home. AW-2 further testified that on the very next day, when his
father went to the residence of the deceased Moti Chand to return his
bag, he was apprised that Moti Chand had met with an accident, which
Signature Not Verified
FAO 503/2017
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:17.11.2023
15:29:08
resulted in his death. The aforementioned testimony appears to be
natural, striking to common sense and logical and this Court is unable
to persuade itself to hold it not truthful.
10. There is more to the story than to meet the eyes. It is significant
to note that the body of the deceased was found near railway gate
No.18 between KM 879/25 and 879/27 near UP line between
Meethapur Samara and Sarayu, which comes in the jurisdiction of PS
Saini and DD entry no. 10 with regard to a dead body lying on track
was recorded on 19.05.2016 at 7.20 a.m. and the inquest was
conducted at around 8.30 a.m. The report opined that death of the
deceased occurred due to an accidental fall from the train.
11. A careful perusal of testimony of AW-2 would show that there
was no challenge to his deposition recorded before the Tribunal that
he was travelling along with his parents in a reserved compartment
and there was a vacant berth which was offered to the deceased at
Meharva Station but then the testimony of AW-2 that the deceased did
not opt for the same as it would have entailed payment of some fine
and instead purchased a ticket for the general compartment was not
challenged in the cross-examination. No evidence was led by the
respondent to show that AW-2 had no reserved booking so as to hold
his version untruthful. Further, there was no challenge to his version
that the train had a halt at Allahabad Railway Station for about 20-30
minutes and he even had tea with the deceased. There was no
challenge in the cross-examination of AW-2 that the deceased opted to
travel in the general compartment after buying a ticket. There was no
suggestion to AW-2 in his cross-examination that he had any apparent
Signature Not Verified
FAO 503/2017
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:17.11.2023
15:29:08
motive or interest to depose falsely in favour of the family of the
deceased. At the cost of repetition, his version that when they reached
Delhi and he did not find Moti Chand, appears to be inspiring
confidence.
12. The observations made by the learned RCT about blatant
contradiction as regards the version of AW-2 that the bag of the
deceased was returned on the following day, while on the other hand
the appellant/claimant inter alia making an averment in the claim
petition that luggage was lost, cannot be held to be so decisive so as to
defeat her claim. AW-1 was an illiterate lady hailing from a remote
village in District Sivan, State of Bihar. It is pertinent to mention that
as a matter of fact no luggage was found with the body of the
deceased as is mentioned in the DD Entry No. 10 and evidently such
inadvertent mistake occurred on the part of the counsel for the
appellant who in his anxiety to draft the claim petition overlooked
such fact. Be that as it may, the aforesaid contradiction was not
prodded about in her cross examination either, and therefore, it would
not be fair to hold her testimony tainted in any manner.
13. Further, it is clearly brought out from the post-mortem of the
deceased conducted on 20.05.2016 that he had sustained skull injuries
in the sense that the brain matter had come out; and it was also
brought out that there was a fracture on the right arm as well as left
forearm as also a fracture on the wrist joint. There were also crush
injuries due to which gastrointestinal parts had oozed out and were
visible; and there were fractures on both legs including a fracture in
the middle of the thigh bone. Further, there found were multiple
Signature Not Verified
FAO 503/2017
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:17.11.2023
15:29:08
abrasions present on both front & back chest region besides fractured
ribs and indisputably the nature of injuries were commensurating from
accidental fall from a train. Lastly, and most pertinently, there is
nothing in the post mortem that the deceased had consumed alcohol.
Therefore, there is no case of the respondent that the deceased was
blameworthy in any manner or to say guilty of contributory
negligence.
FINAL DECISION
14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court finds that the
appellant /claimant has been succeeded in proving by preponderance
of probabilities that her deceased husband was a bonafide passenger
travelling in general compartment of Lichhavi Express within the
ambit of Section 2 (29) of The Act2 and that he met with an „untoward
incident‟ as defined under section 2 (n) read with clause (c) of Section
123 of The Act3. Mere fact that the rail ticket was not recovered from
the dead body is hardly of any consequence as deposition of AW-2 is
manifestly truthful, that the ticket was purchased and the deceased
travelled in the general compartment. It is probable that the rail ticket
might have fallen out of the pockets probably on account of the
impact of jerks due to the momentum of the body on its fall on the rail
tracks. Reference can be invited to the decision in Union of India vs
Rina Devi4, wherein it was reiterated that if a dead body is found in
the precincts of the Railway Station, there is a presumption that the
2 "passenger" means a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket;
3 "untoward incident" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (c )of Section 123 of the
Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989).
4 (2019) 3 SCC 572
Signature Not Verified
FAO 503/2017
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:17.11.2023
15:29:08
deceased was a „bonafide passenger‟. In the instant case, the dead
body was found at a place where the deceased could not have
otherwise been, unless he was travelling in the train.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order dated
29.05.2017 passed by the learned RCT cannot be sustained in law for
being perverse, based on erroneous appreciation of evidence on the
record and suffering from patent illegality. The same is set aside and
the appeal is accordingly allowed and the appellant is awarded a
compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs with interest @ 9% per annum from the
date of the incident i.e., 19.10.2016 till this date.
16. It is further directed that the amount of compensation be
deposited with the Registrar, RCT within a period of four weeks from
today, failing which the appellant shall be entitled to an interest @ 9%
per annum on the claim amount from the date of this judgment till
realization.
17. The instant appeal is disposed of accordingly.
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
NOVEMBER 17, 2023
ss
Signature Not Verified
FAO 503/2017
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:17.11.2023
15:29:08
