Ramlal Soni vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 17008 MP

                                                                        1
                                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                        AT JABALPUR
                                                                  BEFORE
                                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                         ON THE 21 st OF DECEMBER, 2022
                                                     MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 247 of 2016

                                       BETWEEN:-
                                       1.    RAMLAL SONI S/O SHRI SHIVSAMPAT SONI,
                                             AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

                                       2.    SMT. AAYEE DEVI W/O RAMLAL SONI, AGED
                                             ABOUT 55 YEARS.

                                             BOTH R/O VILLAGE CHOURA, POST RAHAT, P.S.
                                             CHORHATA,    DISTRICT  REWA    (MADHYA
                                             PRADESH)

                                                                                                    .....APPELLANTS
                                       (BY SHRI JANAK LAL SONI - ADVOCATE)

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

                                                                                                   .....RESPONDENT
                                       (BY SHRI HARSHVARDHAN SINGH RAJPUT - 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 judgment dated 01.12.2015 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench in

Signature Not Verified claim case No.OA/IIu/BPL/2011/0128, whereby claim filed by the claimants SAN

Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL was dismissed on the ground that along with the DRM report, statement of one Date: 2022.12.22 12:35:55 IST

registered licencee vendor Shri Mahesh Prasad Gupta was enclosed in which it

is mentioned that deceased Ugesh was not travelling from Jabalpur to Satna by Godan express but, was in fact an unauthorized tea seller, who while trying to board the train before it could stop at Satna, slipped from the train, as a result, death was caused.

2. It is submitted that there is evidence of the claimant that he had purchased a ticket and had given to the deceased, therefore, the onus to prove otherwise had shifted on the Railway authorities in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi and others, (2019) 3 SCC 572.

3. Shri Harshvardhan Singh Rajput submits that DRM report is admissible.

There is a procedure for admission and denial of documents and, thereafter, marking of documents. No rejoinder was filed by the claimants, therefore, it will be deemed to be admission of the DRM report filed by the respondent-Union of India.

4. A careful perusal of Rule 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules of 1989''), provides for filing of reply and other documents by the respondents. Thereafter, Rule 15-A provides for filing of rejoinder. There is a provision for admission and denial of documents as contained in Rule 15-B. Thereafter, Rule 15-C provides that documents filed by the applicant shall be marked as 'A' series and the documents filed by the respondent shall be marked as 'R' series and the Tribunal exhibits shall be marked as 'C' series.

5. In the present case, though documents have been marked as 'A' and 'R' Signature Not Verified SAN series but, there is no exhibit 'C' marked on the statement of Mahesh Prasad Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL Date: 2022.12.22 12:35:55 IST Gupta dated 22.09.2011 filed along with the DRM report. Thus, without any

document being exhibited, it cannot be said to be admissible in evidence.

6. There is no admission and denial for which Tribunal is responsible in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 15-B of the Rules of 1989. Thus, it is evident that learned Tribunal erred in not subjecting the parties to admission and denial of documents. A mistake which is a reflection on the functioning of the learned Railway Claims Tribunal that though there was presence of Judicial Member but, this procedure as prescribed under the Rules were not followed.

7. Thus, it is evident that submission made by Shri Harshvardhan Singh Rajput that this statement of Mahesh Prasad Gupta was admissible, without it being exhibited, is contrary to the provisions contained in law and also contrary to the material available on record inasmuch as firstly, there was no admission or denial of the document, which Tribunal was obliged to carry out; secondly, there was no marking of the exhibit and thirdly, author of the document was not examined by the Railway administration before the learned Tribunal. Therefore, Tribunal was not authorized to rely on the statements of Mahesh Prasad Gupta to defeat the claim and hold that railway administration by producing the statements of Mahesh Prasad Gupta along with the DRM report, discharged its burden.

8. Thus, when matter is taken into consideration then, it is evident that Railway administration had not discharged its burden of denying the fact that

deceased was not a bonafide passenger. Therefore, in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Jaswant Vs. Deen Dayal, 2011 (3) MPHT 422 and Pushpa Devi Vs. General Manager, 2015(1) MPLJ 593 and Rina Devi (supra), the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, is liable to be and is Signature Not Verified SAN

hereby set aside.

Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL Date: 2022.12.22 12:35:55 IST

9. It is directed that claimants are entitled to claim compensation as per the

law which may be paid to the claimants within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law.

10. In above terms, this miscellaneous appeal is disposed of.

11. Record of the Tribunal be sent back.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE pp

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL Date: 2022.12.22 12:35:55 IST