Union Of India vs Rafiqbhai Yusufbhai Raniwala
2023 Latest Caselaw 6430 Guj

                                                                                       NEUTRAL CITATION




      C/FA/5296/2007                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2023

                                                                                       undefined




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


                       R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5296 of 2007


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH SHASTRI                                   Sd-

==================================================

1      Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to                 No
       see the judgment ?
2      To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                             No
3      Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of                No
       the judgment ?
4      Whether this case involves a substantial question of                No
       law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India
       or any order made thereunder ?

==================================================
                              UNION OF INDIA
                                   Versus
                       RAFIQBHAI YUSUFBHAI RANIWALA
==================================================
Appearance:
MS REETA CHANDARANA(3023) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KUNAL M SHAH(5588) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR MAHESH B SHAH(1053) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH SHASTRI

                              Date : 04/09/2023

                              ORAL JUDGMENT

[1] By way of present First Appeal under Section 23 of the

Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 a challenge is made to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/5296/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2023

undefined

decision dated 11.05.2006 delivered by the Railway Claims

Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench in Case No. O.A. 0500136.

[2] The case of original claimant - opponent is that the

claimant was travelling in Train No. 9168 UP Sabarmati Express

on 21.04.2005, which collided with JNPT Conraj Goods Train

standing on Line No.4 at Samalaya Station of Vadodara Division,

Western Railway. On account of such untoward incident, the

original claimant i.e. opponent sustained grievous injuries

almost all part of the body. As a result of this, he has sought a

claim to the extent of Rs.3,91,500/- and the said claim petition

was registered as Case No. OA 0500136 before the Railway

Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench.

[2.1] After considering the overall circumstances, which are

prevailing on record, and the evidence having been examined,

the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench was pleased to

pass judgment and order on 11.05.2006, which is made the

subject matter of present First Appeal.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/5296/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2023

undefined

[3] The present First Appeal appears to have been admitted

by virtue of order dated 13.03.2008, which has then came up for

consideration before this Court finally and record & proceedings

have also reached to this Court. As a result of this, the First

Appeal is taken up for hearing.

[4] Ms. Reeta Chandarana, learned advocate appearing on

behalf of the appellant has submitted that a clear error is

committed by the learned Tribunal in allowing the compensation

to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- more particularly when the

original ticket was not produced by the respondent and further

on account of the material having not been so cogently

produced before the learned Tribunal, the conclusion arrived at

by the learned Tribunal is not just and proper, which requires to

be corrected. However, Ms. Chandarana, learned advocate has

fairly and candidly submitted that considering the factum of

accident and ticket and as such, after drawing attention to some

of the observations made by the learned Tribunal, a request is

made to pass suitable order in the present First Appeal.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/5296/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2023

undefined

[5] As against this, Mr. Mahesh B. Shah, learned advocate

appearing for the defendant has submitted that the order

passed is after assigning proper reasons and after evaluation

the evidence on record and as such he has supported the

conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal.

[6] Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the

parties and having gone through the material placed on record,

it appears from the record that the factum of accident which has

taken place on 21.04.2005 is not disputed throughout by the

railway administration and in addition thereto, the grievous

injuries which have been suffered by the opponent are also

almost admitted, and as such, when these two elements are

specifically not disputed by the railway administration, it

appears that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal is

just and proper and only defence which appears to have been

taken is with regard to the ticket having not been produced in

original form but now during the course of submissions, it has

been candidly submitted that the original ticket has been found

from the record and proceedings as submitted by Ms.

Chandarana, learned advocate and it has been specifically

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/5296/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2023

undefined

recorded that copy of the ticket along with the medical record,

FIR, station diary and panchnama were also forming part of the

record and it is after appreciation of all these materials on

record, the specific conclusion is arrived at, and hence, this

Court is of the opinion that no error is committed by the learned

Tribunal while arriving at a decision. Hence, in view of this, the

conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to

be erroneous or perverse in any form. Every aspect appears to

have been gone into by the learned Tribunal hence, the possible

view which has been taken by the learned Tribunal is required

no interference.

[7] At this stage, the scope of appeal has already been

propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions

which are in the case of Venkatesh Construction Company

versus Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Limited reported in

(2016) 4 SCC 119 and in the case of V. Prabhakara versus

Basavaraj K. (DEAD) By Legal Representative and another

reported in (2022) 1 SCC 115 which are propounding that if

the conclusion is arrived at after appreciation of proper material

and the view taken by the learned Tribunal below is a possible

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/5296/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2023

undefined

view then on the basis of very same material normally the

substitution of view is not permissible unless there appears to

be material irregularity or perversity whereas herein in this

case no such eventuality is reflecting. On the contrary, the

judgments are to that effect that even if inadvertently original

ticket is not produced, but attended circumstances are

indicating that the claimant has sustained the injuries on

account of undisputed accident then the claim cannot be

refused. In a recent decision delivered by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Kamrunnissa versus Union of India

reported in (2019) 12 SCC 391, few observations contained in

the decision deserve an attention while coming to an ultimate

conclusion in the present proceedings and as such since same

are considered by this Court, the most relevant observations

which are contained in paragraph 10, the Court would like to

reproduce hereunder:-

"10. This court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) has explained the burden of proof when body of a passenger is found on railway premises. While analysing the said issue, this Court has considered the judgement of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Raj Kumari v. Union of India3 and the judgements of Delhi High Court in Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India4 , Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jetty Naga Lakshmi Parvathi vs. Union of India5 and also considered the judgement of this Court in Kamrunnissa vs. Union of India6 and in para 29 concluded as thus-

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/5296/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2023

undefined

"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."

[8] Considering the overall circumstances, which are

prevailing on record and in view of aforementioned

pronouncement, this Court is of the opinion that when the

admitted positions which are very much reflecting and

considered by the learned Tribunal in the absence of any

distinguishable material, this Court is not in a position to

dislodge the observation which has been made by the learned

Tribunal. Accordingly, since First Appeal lacks meritless, the

same stands dismissed.

Sd-

(ASHUTOSH SHASTRI, J.)

DHARMENDRA KUMAR