Ranjeet Sihote vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 3131 MP

                                1                   M.A. No.5771 of 2019



IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   AT JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
              ON THE 21st OF FEBRUARY, 2023
          MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 5771 of 2019

BETWEEN:-
1.   RANJEET SIHOTE S/O LATE
     SHRI BABULAL SIHOTE, AGED
     ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O 4766/1,
     WARD NO. 10, SHANTI NAGAR,
     JUNIOR LIC LAL BUILDING,
     MANDIDEEP, P.S. MANDIDEEP,
     DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA
     PRADESH)
2.   SMT. VINEETA SIHOTE W/O
     SHRI RANJEET SIHOTE, AGED
     ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O 4766/1,
     WARD NO. 10, SHANTI NAGAR,
     JUNIOR LIC LAL BUILDING,
     MANDIDEEP, P.S. MANDIDEEP,
     DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA
     PRADESH)
                                             .....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI ASHOK SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)
AND
UNION   OF    INDIA  THROUGH
GENERAL     MANAGER,     WEST
CENTRAL    RAILWAY,   JABALUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
                                             .....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI DEVESH BHOJNE - ADVOCATE)

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

following:

                               ORDER

This Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway

Claims Tribunal Act has been filed against the judgment dated 30/08/2019 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, Bhopal, in case No. OA-IIu/BPL/122/2017, by which the claim filed by the appellants has been rejected on the ground that neither the deceased

- Shubham Sihote was a bonafide passenger nor he met with an untoward accident.

2. The facts of the case are that on 03/01/2017, the dead body of Shubham Sihote was found on the down main line at Narsinghpur Railway Station. The Security Commissioner submitted a report accepting that the deceased had died because of fall from a running train. However, it was also mentioned in the report (Ex.R-1) that since no ticket was found, therefore the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.

3. The appellants filed a claim petition that the deceased after purchasing the ticket from Bhopal to Jabalpur came to Itarsi and from thereafter by changing the train, he was travelling in other train and he fell down from a running train at Railway Station Narsinghpur.

4. The respondent relied upon the report submitted by the Security Commissioner (Ex.R-1). In the said report, the following finding was given:-

"tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk ekeys ls ladfy nLrkostksa ls Li"V gS fd e`rd 'kqHke flgksrs fnukad [email protected] 2017 dks jkf= esa xkM+h la[;k 11065 Mkmu iou ,Dlizl s ds njokts esa cSBdj ;k=k dj jgk FkkA ;k=k ds nkSjku fdeh-ua- [email protected] ij pyrh xkM+h ls fxjdj nq?kZVuk dk f'kdkj gqvk gSA e`rd ds ikl ;k=k djus lEca/kh dksbZ nLrkost ugha ik;s x;sA blfy;s e`rd dks jsy ;k=h ugha dgk tk ldrkA e`rd }kjk lqj{kk ds ekin.Mksa dh vogsyuk djus ds dkj.k og nq?kZVuk dk

f'kdkj gqvk gSA blesa jsy iz'kklu dh dksbZ xyrh ugha ik;h xbZA e`rd Lo;a viuh ekSr dk ftEesnkj ik;k tkrk gSA vr% nkokdrkZ Jh jathr flgksrs }kjk e`rd Jh 'kqHke flgksrs ds lEca/k esa fd;k nkok nsus ;ksX; ugha gSA"

5. Thus, the respondents in their in-house enquiry had also come to a conclusion that the deceased was traveling in Pawan Express and he fell down from a running train.

6. The Tribunal after considering the spot map has held that the dead body cannot be found in between the down and up track, but did not dealt with the DRM report filed by the respondents themselves.

7. Once the respondents themselves have inspected the spot and have given a specific finding that the deceased was travelling in Pawan Express and had fallen down from a running train, then this Court is of the considered opinion that the initial burden to prove that the deceased died in an untoward incident was discharged by the appellants. Furthermore, the respondents did not examine any witness in support of their case. They could have examined their witness to claim that the report submitted to DRM was erroneous but that was not done by the respondents.

8. Under these circumstances, the respondents by making oral submissions cannot disown the report submitted by them before the Claims Tribunal.

9. Under these circumstances, this Court of the considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly held that the deceased was not travelling in Pawan Express and did not died in an untoward incident.

The next question for consideration is as to whether the deceased was bonafide passenger travelling with a validly issued ticket or not?

10. The appellants have examined Rahul Mehroliya, who in his affidavit had stated that Shubham Sihote had purchased the ticket of General Second Class in his presence. He has further stated that the deceased was to travel by Pathankot Express but since it was delayed, therefore Shubham Sihote changed his program and informed this witness that he would go to Itarsi by Pathankot Express and from Itarsi he would change the train to go to Jabalpur.

11. Rahul Mehroliya was cross-examined by the respondents. Not a single question was put to this witness with regard to purchase of ticket by Shubham Sihote. Thus, the evidence of Rahul Mehroliya with regard to purchase of ticket by the deceased - Shubham Sihote remained unchallenged.

12. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 has held as under:-

"29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly."

13. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hariram Vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 1 MPHT 111 has held as under:-

"15. In this context reference can be had of a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Union of India vs. Satish Patidar 2003 (4) M.P.L.J. 306; wherein it is held :

"27. This brings us to point No. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, as the claimants could not establish that he purchased the ticket. The burden to prove that the deceased had a valid ticket during his journey which he proceeded cannot be placed on dependents. Obviously, such burden of proof is impossible to be discharged by the dependents who can have no means of knowledge whether the deceased before boarding the train had purchased the valid ticket. It is likely that such a deceased passenger had a valid ticket but the same was lost in accident. To place the onus of proof dependents would amount to denial of the benefit of legislation to them for reasons beyond their control. In the case before us, the presumption has to be drawn that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Therefore, we affirm the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was a bona fide passenger."

16. In the case at hand, situation is not different than that of Satish Patidar (supra), infact, is better in the present case; wherein, the respondent-Railways in the written statement has admitted that the deceased was travelling in an unknown train.

17. In view whereof, it is held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and died due to accidental falling from the train which being an untoward incident under Section 123(2) read with Section 124 of the

Railways Act, 1989. Therefore, the Tribunal grossly erred in non-suiting the appellants."

14. Merely because the ticket was not recovered from the dead body of the deceased, would not ipso facto mean that he was not travelling on a validly issued railway ticket.

15. Furthermore, the Railway has employed Ticket Checkers whose duty is to ensure that the passenger should board the train after purchasing a validly issued ticket or else they are supposed to recover penalty as well as the fare from the passenger travelling in a train without ticket.

16. It is not the case of the respondent that during ticket checking, the deceased was found to be without any ticket.

17. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal committed a material illegality by holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.

18. Since this untoward incident took place on 03/01/2017 and by notification which came into force with effect from 01/01/2017, the amount of compensation was enhanced from Rupees Four Lacs to Rupees Eight Lacs, therefore the appellants shall be entitled for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Only).

19. Ex consequenti, the judgment dated 30/08/2019 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, Bhopal, in case No. OA- IIu/BPL/122/2017, is hereby set aside.

20. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE shubhankar

Digitally signed by SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Date: 2023.02.21 17:51:39 +05'30'