Smti Rukmini Chauhan vs The Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 666 Gua

                                                                            Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010098602018




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
     (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : MFA/85/2018

            SMTI RUKMINI CHAUHAN
            W/O LATE JAGADISH CHAUHAN
            VILLAGE BHOLABARI CHAHBAGICHA,
            PO AND PS KALAIGAON
            DIST UDALGURI, BTAD, ASSAM
            784525



            VERSUS

            THE UNION OF INDIA
            REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, NF RAILWAY, MALIGAON,
            GUWAHATI 781011



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S CHAUHAN

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NF RLY


                                   BEFORE
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                       JUDGMENT

24 .02.2022 Heard Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. B. Sarma, learned Counsel representing the respondent.

2. This is an appeal under Section 23 of the Railways Act, 1989 against the judgment and order dated 05.04.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Page No.# 2/5

Guwahati Bench in O.A. IIu/61/2015 (Old) and OA (IIu)/GHY/2015/0061 (New).

3. On 29.7.2014, after purchasing a ticket, the deceased Jagadish Chauhan was going from Rangia to the State of Kerala in a train. He fell down from the running train at Kanjeod, Palakkad Station and died because of the injuries sustained.

4. On the basis of the said facts, Smti Rukmini Chauhan, the wife of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

5. The respondent contested the claim petition by stating that there were no eye witnesses to support the fact that the deceased died after falling down from a running train. The respondent also claimed that no railway ticket was recovered from the place of occurrence to prove that the deceased was actually travelling by that train.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

         (i)      Whether the victim was a bonafide passenger?

         (ii)     Whether the victim died in an untoward incident?

          (iii)    Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation? If so, to what sum?
                   (sic.)

          (iv)    Relief and cost.

7. The Tribunal finally dismissed the claim of the appellant. The Tribunal held that the identity of the deceased was not proved nor it was proved that the deceased was a passenger within the meaning of Section 2 (29) of the Railways Act, 1989, because no valid ticket was recovered to that effect.

8. The learned counsel Mr. Chauhan has pointed out that the Sub Inspector of the concerned Police Station issued death intimidation stating that Jagadish Chauhan had died after falling from a running train and one Voter Identity Card of the deceased was recovered. Mr. Chauhan has added that the finding of the Tribunal that the identity of the deceased was not established is not correct in view of the Page No.# 3/5

aforesaid fact.

9. Per contra, Mr. Sarma has submitted that under the law railway administration is obliged to pay compensation only if the death or injury was caused to a bonafide passenger in an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act of 1989. According to Mr. Sarma, in this case, no railway ticket was recovered from the deceased and, therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased was a bonafide passenger having a valid ticket.

10. The learned counsel Mr. Sarma has submitted that the postmortem report of the deceased shows that the body of the deceased was torn into several parts and it is highly unlikely that a person falling from a running train would sustain such type of injuries.

11. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rina Devi, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572, the learned counsel Mr. Sarma has submitted that the appellant has failed to discharge the initial burden of proof and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has correctly rejected the claim petition.

12. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides.

13. At this stage, Section 123 (c) and sub section 2 of the Railways Act, 1989 is relevant. It reads as under:

"123. Definitions.--In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,--

[(c) "untoward incident" means--

(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or

(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or

(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying Page No.# 4/5

passengers.]".

14. Under the provision of Section 124 A of the Act of 1989 the railways is liable to pay compensation for an 'untoward incident'. Accidental falling from a train is an untoward incident. Therefore, it must be proved first that the deceased was travelling in a train and he fell from a running train. This fact will be proved if a valid ticket is found.

15. In the case in hand, no valid railway ticket is recovered. The death of a person caused by a train does not itself become an untoward incident for which the railways will be bound to pay compensation under the law.

16. Paragraph 29 of Rina Devi (supra) is quoted 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 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."

17. In the present case, there is no doubt that a dead body was recovered in the railway tracks. But this fact per se does not prove that the deceased was travelling in the train and he died after falling from a running train. No valid railway ticket was discovered to have an opinion that the deceased was actually travelling in a train. Going by the principle laid down in Rina Devi (supra), the appellant failed to discharge the initial burden and in such a case, the burden of proof does not shift on the railways. The burden of proof to establish the plea of bonafide status of the passenger or the injury of the deceased because of an "untoward incident" in a claim for compensation is always upon the claimant.

18. This Court finds that the impugned judgment is a well reasons judgment. Even the identity of the dead body has not been proved to be that of Jagadish Chauhan. There is no proof that the deceased was travelling in a train with a valid ticket. The Tribunal correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a correct finding.

19. This court finds that there is no merit in this appeal and hence the same is dismissed.

20. Send back the LCR.

JUDGE Page No.# 5/5

Comparing Assistant