Ishtiyaque Alam vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 13076 MP

                                                            1
                           IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                               ON THE 11 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                               MISC. APPEAL No. 2131 of 2021

                          BETWEEN:-
                          ISHTIYAQUE ALAM S/O ALI HASAN, AGED ABOUT 26
                          YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB R/O GRAM PASTA,
                          POST PASTA, THANA BALRAMPUR (CHHATTISGARH)

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

                          AND
                          UNION OF INDIA THR. GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH
                          EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI H.S. RAJPUT - ADVOCATE)

                                T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                          following:
                                                             ORDER

This Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant being aggrieved of

judgment dated 13/07/2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench Bhopal in Case No. OA/IIu/BPL/62/2019 on the ground that the Claim petition filed by the claimant on account of accident met by claimant Ishtiyaque Alam who was studying Mechanical Engineering and had gone to Nagpur on 23/09/2018 to give an interview and while returning on 24/09/2018, he had purchased a reserved ticket to travel by Narmada Express ex Bhopal to Anuppur. He reached Anuppur on 25/09/2018.

He boarded the train to travel to Ambikapur. Due to sudden braking, he Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 8/14/2023 7:52:19 PM

had fallen down from Shahdol Ambikapur passenger train causing severe injury to his face and jaw but learned Tribunal has arbitrarily rejected his claim petition treating him to be not a bonafide passenger on the said train.

Shri M. Shafiqullah submits that the provisions contained in Rule 6 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 have not been considered in the right perspective. It is submitted that Rule 6 underlines the duties of the Station Superintendent and none of these duties have been followed, therefore, the claim should not have been dismissed.

Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kalandi Charan Sahoo and another Vs. General Manager, South-East Central

Railway 2018 ACJ 1460 to submit that when incident was investigated on receipt of claim application after four years of the occurrence, then dismissal of the claim by the Tribunal is not justified.

Shri H.S. Rajput in his turn supports the impugned judgment. I have gone through the material available on record. The dispute is as to whether the claimant was a bonafide passenger or not ? The accident admittedly took place on 25/09/2018. A ticket was produced by father of the claimant on 2/11/2018 and that too for two passengers. The seizure memo is available as Annexure A-3 on record and photocopy of the ticket is Annexure A-4.

The statement of the claimant reveals that he deposed before the Tribunal that on 25/09/2018, he reached Anuppur and had purchased a ticket for journey from Anuppur to Ambikapur and was travelling in the general bogie of the said Shahdol Ambikapur passenger. When the train reached Harad station, then he had come to the gate of the toilet and because of jerk, he had fallen down.

In the cross-examination, this witness admitted that he was travelling Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 8/14/2023 7:52:19 PM

alone. His cousin brother had met him at Anuppur and he had purchased his ticket from Anuppur to Ambikapur but his cousin brother had not reached Anuppur station till departure of the train.

This statement is incorrect on the face of the record because it is not the case of the claimant that he had reached Anuppur and has visited the house of his cousin brother, then came to the station to purchase ticket and boarded the train and was waiting for his brother.

In the absence of any such submission, a presumption is that the claimant came to Anuppur from Nagpur via Bhopal and he was alone. If he had met his cousin at Anuppur, then that meeting could only have been in station. In the absence of any such explanation in his examination-in-chief or cross- examination, there was no question of his cousin not reaching the Anuppur station till the train departed.

Thus, it is evident that the story has been cooked to justify the ticket Ex. P-4 for two persons. The claimant had admittedly travelled by Narmada

Express from Bhopal to Anuppur. He had boarded the train on 24 th September, 2018. No statements of the said cousin who was to join the claimant have been recorded before the learned Claims Tribunal. There is an inordinate delay in submission of the ticket and that too by father of the claimant.

Thus, the Tribunal has rightly considered the factual aspect of the case and has held that the ticket was got seized by the applicant's father on 2/11/2018 i.e. more than after a month past the alleged incident. The applicant accepted on oath that he had not got the ticket seized on the same day after occurrence of the incident. Further, he was not present at the time of the seizure.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 8/14/2023 7:52:19 PM

He also deposed that he was not aware whether his cousin Sultan had handed over the ticket to the police. Sultan on interrogation admitted that he had not handed over any ticket to the police. Sultan also admitted that he had not seen Ishtiyaque travelling. He even did not produce the ticket to show that he had travelled to Anuppur and was available at Anuppur on the fateful day. He did not produce any return ticket. Though, in the examination-in-chief, he has deposed that he is also the resident of Balrampur and had visited Anuppur for the personal work. Thus, this story of purchasing ticket for two persons is not corroborated.

On the contrary, the evidence of Chaturbhuj Prasad is relevant who has denied any jerking of any train when it had departed Harad Railway Station. On the contrary, when the train had moved ahead of the platform, then from the rear window, he had seen the person lying on the track on which he had dropped the pressure of the train and after making it stationary had given intimation to the Station Master on his walky talky.

Thus, it is evident that the contention of the claimant that he was a bonafide passenger is not made out. Onus was on the claimant to prove that he was a bonafide passenger and that burden is not discharged by the claimant. The judgment in the case of Kalandi Charan Sahoo (supra) is distinguishable on its own facts and is not applicable to the facts of the matter and, therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Record of the Tribunal be sent back.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 8/14/2023 7:52:19 PM

JUDGE vy

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 8/14/2023 7:52:19 PM