Jharkhand High Court
Md. Amin Khan vs Union Of India Through The General ... on 14 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 626 of 2018
Md. Amin Khan .... Appellant(s)
Versus.
Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur,
Bihar. ... Respondent(s).
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH: VIDEO CONFERENCING.
-----
For the appellant(s): Mr. Rajesh Kr. Jha, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
-----
08/14.09.2021: Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By way of filing this appeal under Section 23(1) of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987, the appellant has challenged the order dated 20.12.2017 passed
by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, Bench in Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/38/2017,
by which, the claim application on account of injury sustained by the appellant has
been dismissed.
3. The Tribunal after considering the claim application decided the same
against the claimant/appellant holding that he is not entitled to get any
compensation on the ground that he has failed to prove that he was a bona fide
passenger of Train No. 53344 DN. Challenging the said award dated 20.12.2017,
the appellant has approached this Court.
4. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was a bona fide
passenger, which is apparent from Exhibit A/3 i.e. Sanha No. 4 dated 10.1.2017
given by one Shri Ram Vinay Dubey, an ASI, Rail Thana, Gomoh. He submits that if
the said exhibit is properly analyzed, it will be clear that the Police Officer had given
the Ticket No. T0051879, which the appellant was possessing. He submits that said
Sanha was recorded immediately after the accident and the appellant was sent for
treatment thereafter. He submits that during the intervening period, the tcket was
lost, therefore, the appellant could not produce the same before the Tribunal, which
prompted the Tribunal to conclude that the appellant was traveling without a valid
ticket. He further submits that this is the only ground to reject the claim for
compensation of the appellant. He also submits that ticket number has also been
mentioned in Sanha and the Sanha was exhibited, thus onus was upon the Railway
to come up with positive evidence to substantiate that the said ticket was either
invalid or fake and in absence of the said evidence, the findings given by the
Tribunal is absolutely bad.
5. Counsel for the respondent submits that the onus was upon the
appellant to prove that he was traveling on the date of accident in the said train with
valid Ticket. He further submits that in the instant case, admittedly no ticket was
produced before the Tribunal and thus the Tribunal had no other alternative than to
conclude that the appellant was not traveling with a valid ticket and thus he was not
a bona fide passenger. It is further submitted that in absence of proof that the
appellant was a bona fide passenger, the Tribunal was well within the jurisdiction to
dismiss the claim.
6. From the arguments of the parties, the only question which needs to be
answered here is as to whether the parties have properly discharged their onus to
prove as to whether the injured-appellant was a bona fide passenger or not?
7. I have gone through the Lower Court Records, which was called for.
From perusal of the same, it appears that the injured-appellant was a passenger in
Train No. 53344DN who was allegedly having a valid 2 nd Class General Ticket from
Danea to Gomoh. It is alleged that when the train was about to stop at Gomoh
Station, where he was supposed to de-board, unfortunately, he fell down from the
train and he sustained crushed injury on his leg. He was immediately referred to
PMCH, Dhanbad, where he undergone treatment and was discharged on 23.1.2017.
8. Be it noted that the accident had taken place on 9.1.2017 at 23:30
hours. From page No. 8 of the lower court records, it appears that the injured was
referred to PMCH, Dhanbad. The said document is dated 10.1.2017 and time
which is recorded is 00:05 hours. While going through the said document, I find that
it has been mentioned that the injured-appellant was traveling in the said train with
Ticket No. T 0051879 dated 9.1.2017. The reference of the said Ticket number is
also at page No. 9 of the record. It is the case of the appellant that he possessed
the aforesaid ticket, which was valid and during course of treatment when he was
shifted to PMCH, Dhanbad, the same was lost. Naturally, when a person meets with
such type of accident and immediately is shifted to hospital, some of his belongings
might get misplaced. The aforesaid fact was not taken into consideration and thus,
the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the injured-appellant was traveling without a
valid ticket. The entire circumstances needs to be enumerated in this case to
conclude as to whether the injured-appellant was traveling without a ticket or not?
9. The aforesaid Sanha No. 4 dated 10.1.2017 as well as reference of
letter clearly suggests that the appellant was possessing a Ticket bearing No.
T0051879. This fact is evident from two documents, which have been issued by the
respondent. Thus, prima facie, those documents suggest that the injured-appellant
was traveling with a valid train-ticket. This discharges the onus which the injured-
appellant was burden with. To bring some contrary fact on record about the said
ticket, the onus was now upon the railway. In this case, the railway should have
countered by bringing sufficient evidence on record to show that the aforesaid ticket
number was not issued from the Station, from where, the injured-appellant had
boarded or was not a valid ticket or was a fake ticket. The Railway has failed to
discharge the burden which shifted upon them. Once there are two documents in
support of the claimants, produced before the Tribunal, which suggest that the
claimant was a bona fide passenger, the onus shifts upon the Railways to counter
the claim. Here the Railways failed to discharge the onus.
10. In this case, relying on the fact that the appellant could not produce the
train ticket before the Tribunal, he has not been declared as bona fide passenger.
This conclusion is absolutely wrong. Be it noted that the fact of accident and the
fact that the injured-appellant had got injuries arsing out of the said accident, have
not been doubted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that the appellant has
succeeded in proving the alleged occurrence.
11. Considering the facts what has been held above, on the basis of the
materials and documents available on record, it is held that the appellant was a
bona fide passenger as he was traveling with valid train ticket having Ticket No.
T0051879. The railway should have countered by bringing sufficient evidence on
record to show that the aforesaid ticket number was not issued from the Station,
from where, the injured-appellant had boarded or was not valid ticket or was a fake
ticket, which the railway authority has failed to prove the same.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts, the finding given in the impugned award
dated 20.12.2017, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, Bench in Case
No. OA(IIU)/RNC/38/2017 to the effect that the injured-appellant was not a bona
fide passenger, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal only to
decide the quantum of compensation, which the claimant-appellant is entitled to
receive along with statutory interest.
13. With the aforesaid observations and direction, this appeal stands
allowed. The lower court records to be returned to the Tribunal with a copy of this
judgment.
Anu/-CP-2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
