Dhannu Kaul vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 16259 MP

                                                                         1
                                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                        AT JABALPUR
                                                                  BEFORE
                                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                          ON THE 8 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
                                                    MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 2238 of 2016

                                       BETWEEN:-
                                       1.    DHANNU KAUL S/O BARMALI KAUL (FATHER OF
                                             DECEASED).

                                       2.    DHANIYA KAUL W/O DHANNU KAUL (MOTHER OF
                                             DECEASED)
                                             BOTH R/O GRAM KHANNA BANJARI POST
                                             DUKARIYA, TEHSIL BARHI, DISTRICT KATNI
                                             (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                     .....APPELLANTS
                                       (BY SHRI M. SHAFIQULLAH - ADVOCATE)

                                       AND
                                       UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER
                                       WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY, JABALPUR (MADHYA
                                       PRADESH)

                                                                                                    .....RESPONDENT
                                       (BY MS. KANAK GAHARWAR - ADVOCATE)

                                             This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the

                                       following:
                                                                          ORDER

This miscellaneous appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is filed by the claimants being aggrieved of award dated 24.06.2016 passed by the Member Technical for the Division Bench in case No.OA/IIU/BPL/2010/0322 (Shri Dhannu Kaul and another Vs. Union of Signature Not Verified SAN India), whereby learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim application. Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL Date: 2022.12.08 19:10:28 IST

2. It is submitted by Shri M. Shafiqullah, learned counsel for the claimants

that untoward incident is admitted but, on the ground that the ticket which was produced, was for three persons and claimants failed to account for two other persons who had accompanied the deceased either in their plaint or in the evidence and even did not bother to mention that who were they and why they had not reported the matter when the deceased was apparently travelling with them, has dismissed the claim petition.

3. Placing reliance on the judgment of Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in case of Sundari Devi and others Vs. Union of India, (2016) ACJ 643, it is pointed out that Allahabad High Court has held that FIR is not an encyclopedia and non mentioning of details of articles recovered from a

passenger, cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the claimants and, therefore, placing reliance on this judgment of Allahabad High Court, it is submitted that non mentioning of the fact of recovery of a ticket from the possession of the deceased, is not fatal.

4. Ms. Kanak Gaharwar, learned counsel for the Indian Railways, in her turn, submits that firstly a xerox copy certified by GRP, Ganjbasoda is produced. It is evidently for three adults. If deceased was travelling with three adults, then it was necessary that two of them or anyone of them should have reported the incident. There is no mention of the other persons who were travelling with the deceased.

5. Admittedly, deceased was not travelling alone but, was accompanied by two more persons. Therefore, in absence of their evidence, merely procuring a ticket from GRP, Ganjbasoda, is not sufficient to treat the deceased to be a bonafide passenger.

Signature Not Verified SAN

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL Date: 2022.12.08 19:10:28 IST

record, Tribunal has categorically recorded a finding in para 6 that though

claimants have produced a ticket for three adults but, recovery is not mentioned in any of the police document, namely MLC (Ex.A/4), Merg report (Ex.A/7) and Naksha Panchayatnama (Ex.A/8). It has also noted a fact that deceased was not travelling alone but, was accompanied by two more persons. There is no affidavit or oral evidence of any of the passengers, who were accompanying the deceased on the fateful journey. Thus, Tribunal has discarded the bonafides of the ticket and has rejected the claim.

7. When the impugned award is examined, then onus was on the claimants to have produced best possible evidence. They have though produced a xerox copy of ticket issued for three passengers but, have failed to account for two passengers who were accompanying the deceased. They have not led any oral or documentary evidence in this behalf. Thus, the negative inference drawn by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, cannot be said to be out of place, calling for interference when claimants failed to prove the factum of journey as a bonafide passenger.

8. Appeal fails and is dismissed.

9. Record of the Railway Claims Tribunal be sent back.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE pp

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL Date: 2022.12.08 19:10:28 IST