Smt.Satya Kumari vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 16792 MP

                                                                          1
                                        IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                                   BEFORE
                                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                          ON THE 19 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
                                                            MISC. APPEAL No. 1313 of 2014

                                       BETWEEN:-
                                       1.    SMT.SATYA KUMARI W/O LATE PANDITENDRA
                                             CHATURVEDI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

                                       2.    KAVINDRA     CHATURVEDI     S/O    LATE
                                             PANDITENDRA CHATURVEDI, AGED ABOUT 68
                                             YEARS,
                                             BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHANNAUDHI P.S.
                                             JAISINGH NAGAR DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA
                                             PRADESH)

                                                                                                      .....APPELLANTS
                                       (BY SHRI JANAK LAL SONI, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS)

                                       AND
                                       UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER
                                       WESTERN RAILWAY, JABALPUR, M.P.

                                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                                       (BY SHRI \RAKESH JAIN, ADVOCATE)

                                             T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the

                                       following:
                                                                           ORDER

Heard on I.A. No.8226/2014, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. There is delay of 37 days in filing the appeal.

For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an Signature Not Verified SAN affidavit, I.A. No.8226/2014 is allowed. Delay of 37 days in filing the appeal is Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Date: 2022.12.19 18:52:32 IST hereby condoned.

Also heard on I.A. No.15069/2014, an application for deleting the name of appellant No.1 Smt. Satya Kumari from the array of appellant.

As her legal heir is already on record, application is allowed. Let necessary correction be carried out during the course of the day. Also heard on admission.

This appeal is filed by the claimants being aggrieved of award dated 09.01.2014 passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in Case No.OA-IIu/BPL/2011/0134.

Claimants' contention is that mere non-recovery of ticket and fact that deceased was trying to board a running train are not sufficient to dismiss the

claim petition.

Reliance is placed on the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Pushpa Devi Vs. General Manager, 2015(1) MPLJ 593 to support the contention that boarding a running train does not mean that case will fall within the definition of an attempt to suicide or self inflicted injury.

Reliance is also placed on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this High Court in case of Baldev Raikwar Vs. Union of India, 2013(2) MPHT 62 to show that non discovery of ticket is not sufficient to non suit the claimant specially when deceased's father evidence was on record that deceased had purchased the requisite ticket then burden is on the Railway Administration to prove that deceased was not a bonafide passenger.

Shri Rakesh Jain, in his turn, submits that Kerala High Court in Joseph P.T. Vs. Union of India, AIR 2014 Kerala 12 , has held that boarding a

Signature Not Verified SAN running train is in the nature of self-inflicted injury which will fall within the

Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN exception provided under Section 124-A of the Railways' Act, 1989. Date: 2022.12.19 18:52:32 IST

It is submitted that this aspect has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Union of India Vs. Rina Devi, decided on May 9th, 2018 in Civil Appeal No.4945 of 2018 originating from Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10223 @ D.No.6059 of 2018.

It is also submitted that in case of Baldev Raikwar (Supra) claimant i.e. deceased father had adduced evidence that he had purchased the requisite ticket as discussed in para 8 and there was no evidence in rebuttal whereas in the present case there is no evidence of the son of the deceased to show that either he had purchased the ticket or had seen the deceased purchasing the ticket, therefore, decision in case of Baldev Raikwar (supra) is distinguishable on its own facts.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that Railway Administration has shown recovery of money from the possession of the deceased so also a peg containing some clothing and other articles. There is no recovery of ticket to show that deceased was a bonafide passenger.

There is no evidence on record to show that anybody had seen the deceased purchasing a ticket to commence journey. It has come on record that deceased is 75 years of age and was trying to board a running train. A fact which has been considered by a Coordinate Bench in Pushpa Devi (supra) and in my opinion in light of the law laid down by a Coordinate Bench in

Pushpa Devi (supra), this aspect is not of must significance that he was trying to board a running train but what is of actual importance is that journey ticket was not produced nor any evidence was led to show that somebody had seen Signature Not Verified SAN the deceased purchasing a ticket and, therefore, in light of Baldev Raiwar Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Date: 2022.12.19 18:52:32 IST (supra) when deceased was not a bonafide passenger, claim cannot be allowed

as claim is admissible only to a bonafide passenger and not to anybody else. Since burden was not discharged by the claimants ,there was no question of any rebuttal by the Railway Administration, therefore, when all these facts are taken into consideration in accumulative manner, there is no error apparent in the impugned order calling for interference.

Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Record of the Tribunal be sent back.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Tabish

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Date: 2022.12.19 18:52:32 IST