Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Zaibun Nisha vs Union Of India on 14 July, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 14th OF JULY, 2022
MISC. APPEAL No. 3843 of 2019
Between:-
1. SMT.ZAIBUN NISHA W/O LATE MOHAMMAD SALEEM,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 12, DULICHAND KI
BAWDI, CHOLA ROAD, DISTRICT BHOPAL (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ISRAT D/O LATE MOHAMMAD SALEEM, AGED ABOUT
27 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 12, DULICHAND KI BAWDI, CHOLA
ROAD, DISTRICT BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. KU. SABA ANJUM D/O LATE MOHAMMAD SALEEM,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 12, DULICHAND KI
BAWDI, CHOLA ROAD, DISTRICT BHOPAL (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. ANAS S/O LATE MOHAMMAD SALEEM R/O H.NO. 12,
DULICHAND KI BAWDI, CHOLA ROAD, DISTRICT
BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MOHAMMAD SHAFIQULLAH, ADVOCATE)
AND
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER WEST
CENTRAL RAILWAY, JABALPUR (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHYAM KRISHNA MISHRA, ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants being aggrieved of
Signature Not Verified
SAN judgment dated 10.6.2019 passed by Dr.Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, Member (Technical),
Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, Bhopal in Claim Application No.OA-
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2022.07.15 17:41:35 IST
IIu/BPL/2014/427 rejecting their claim filed on account of the accidental death of
Mohammad Salim @ Salim S/o. Late Gafoor Khan due to fall from the train on 23.8.2014
when his dead body was recovered at KM-834/22-24 on the down-track and refusing to
accept the deceased to be a bonafide passenger.
Learned counsel for the appellants drawing attention of this Court to the Report of
the Senior Divisional Safety Commissioner, Bhopal dated 22.1.2019 as has been brought
on record by the Railway Authorities alongwith their written statement submits that in
Paragraph No.8 of the said report itself, it is mentioned as under:-
** ¼8 ½ ?kVuk dk laf {kIr fooj.k & mDr nkok izdj.k ds vUrxZr tkap vf/kdkjh ds }kjk
xgurk ls tkap djus ij] mudh tkap fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj fnukad 23-08-2014 ds le; djhcu 15%20 cts
,d O;fDr dks tks fdeh uacj [email protected]&24 ds e/; Mkmu Vsªd ds fdukjs gchcxat&Hkksiky jsy[kaM
esa fdlh xkMh ls fxjdj ?kk;y gqvk FkkA 108 ,acwysal ds }kjk gehfn;k vLirky Hkstk x;k Fkk tgka
ijh{k.k mijkar MkDVj }kjk mls e`r ?kksf"kr djrs gq;s ,s'kckx iqfyl Fkkus dks lwpuk nh xbZ FkhA bl
lwpuk ij ,s'kckx Fkkus ds iz/kku vkj{kd egs'k flag }kjk gehfn;k vLirky igqapdj 'ko dk iapukek
vkSj ekSdk dk;Zokgh dh tkdj ih-,e- gsrq vkosnu fn;k x;k FkkA e`rd dh ryk'kh esa gks'kaxkckn ls
Hkksiky dk ,d ;k=k fVfdV uacj ch&63082559 fnukad 23-08-2014 dks lsdsaM esy ,Dlizsl dk ik;k
x;kA ckn e`rd ds 'ko dk iksLVekVZe djus ds mijkar 'kkldh; fpfdRld }kjk e`rd dh e`R;q dk
dkj.k **Death was due to Shock and Haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries to
the body" crk;k x;kA ckn ?kVuk ds laca/k esa flfoy iqfyl ,s'kckx }kjk exZ dzekad [email protected] /kkjk
174 lhvkjihlh iathd`r dj ekeys dks tkap esa fy;k x;kA**
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that filing of the original ticket at a
belated stage cannot be said to be a ground for rejection of the claim application when in
the D.R.M report itself, it is mentioned that during the search of the deceased, the Ticket
bearing No.B-63082559 dated 23.8.2014 for journey between Hoshangabad to Bhopal
Signature Not Verified
SAN
was recovered. Thus, the Railway Claims Tribunal erred in holding the deceased not to
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2022.07.15 17:41:35 IST
be a bonafide passenger.
Reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellants on a Coordinate Bench
Judgement of this Court in Baldev Raikwar versus Union of India 2013 (2) M.P.H.T
62 wherein it is held that where there is evidence that the deceased had purchased the
requisite ticket and there was no evidence in rebuttal then the burden is on the Railway
Administration to prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and since this
burden was not discharged by the Railway Administration, the Court held that the
deceased was a bonafide passenger.
Reliance is further placed by learned counsel for the appellants on the Coordinate Bench Judgment of
this Court in Pushpa Devi Vs. General Manager, 2015(1) M.P.L.J 593 wherein it is held that if the
deceased got down at platform either to quench his thirst or he might have found difficult to board train due to
crowd when it started moving then it cannot be said that the deceased was not acting like a prudent man and
deliberated a self inflicted injury. Consequently held that deceased was a bonafide passenger and his death was
an untoward incident.
Another important judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellants in Sheikh
Mahboob Basha and others Vs. Union of India 2016 ACJ 1882 is also relevant
where the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad drew a presumption in favour of the
deceased that generally every passenger holds a valid ticket unless the contrary proved.
As far as the contention of the Railway Claims Tribunal that the act of the
deceased in tarvelling on a foot-board of a train will constitute an offence and will fall
within the exceptions provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act is concerned,
no such evidence is available on record while infact it has come on record that the dead
body of the deceased was recovered between Habibganj Railway Station and the Main
Railway Station under Aishbagh Police Station, which means that the train was about to
reach the Bhopal Station and if the passenger was preparing to deboard the train and if he
Signature Not Verified
SAN falls due to some push or any other external course then it cannot be said that he was
negligent and his case will fall within the exception provided under Section 124-A of the
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2022.07.15 17:41:35 IST
Railways Act.
Taking all these facts into consideration and keeping in view the authoritative
pronouncement of law, I am of the opinion that the learned Railway Claims Tribunal has
erred in appreciating the facts of the case correctly and it has failed to act independently
as a Member of the Railway Claims Tribunals but has acted more as an Officer of the
Indian Railways.
Accordingly, this miscellaneous appeal is allowed quashing the impugned judgment
dated 10.6.2019 passed by Dr.Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, Member (Technical), Railway
Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, Bhopal in Claim Application No.OA-IIu/BPL/2014/427.
The respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only)
to the appellants alongwith 7.5% per annum interest from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the date of the actual payment.
Let record of the Railway Claims Tribunal be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2022.07.15 17:41:35 IST
