Smt. Bassu Bai vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 3168 MP

                                   1
 IN      THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT JABALPUR
                          BEFORE
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                    ON THE 21 st OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                     MISC. APPEAL No. 2507 of 2019

BETWEEN:-
1.     SMT. BASSU BAI W/O SHRI RAM LAL, AGED
       ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BAHUTI, THANA
       NAIGARHI, DISTT. REWA , PRESENT ADDRESS -
       ADIVASI CHHATRAVAS, HOSTEL, ADHARTAL,
       DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.     SMT. KARUNA KUMARI W/O LATE SHRI SUNIL
       KUMAR YADAV, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O
       VILLAGE BAHUTI, THANA NAIGARHI, DISTT.
       REWA , PRESENT ADDRESS - ADIVASI
       CHHATRAVAS, HOSTEL, ADHARTAL, DISTT.
       JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                              .....APPELLANTS
(SMT. APARNA SINGH - ADVOCATE WITH SHRI ASHOK SHRIVASTAVA -
ADVOCATE)

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

                                                            .....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT )

       This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                    ORDER

T his Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been filed against the award dated 31.01.2019 passed by Member (Technical), Bhopal in case No. O.A./IIu/BPL.2014/0381.

2. The appellants had filed a claim petition under Section 16(1) r.w. Section

13(1-A) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 as well as under Section 124- A of Railways Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondent on account of death of Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav. The tribunal by the impugned award has held that the deceased died because of fall from the running train and accordingly, it was held that the deceased was the victim of untoward incident. However, the claim petition was dismissed on ground that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as he was not travelling on a ticket.

3. Challenging the award passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the Railway ticket of five persons was seized by the Police from Smt. Bassu Bai Yadav on 09.07.2014, which is apparent from

the seizure memo, Exhibit A/6. Thus, in case if the ticket was not recovered from the dead body of the deceased, then no presumption can be drawn that he was not a bonafide passenger and to buttress his contention the counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hariram Vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 1 MPHT

111.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

5. The only question for consideration is as to whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger or not? It is the case of the appellants that the deceased was travelling alongwith his mother and sisters. The mother and sisters were sitting in the bogie, whereas the deceased was standing near the door and he fell down from the running train. As per seizure memo, Exhibit A/6, the Railway ticket of five persons was seized on 09.07.2014 from Smt. Bassu Bai Yadav, the mother of the deceased, at the time of recording of her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

6. Smt. Bassu Bai has filed her affidavit claiming that she alongwith her daughters and deceased son was travelling in the train and the deceased son fell down from the running train. She was cross examined and in the cross- examination she stated as under:

"My daughter in law was travelling with me who is also staying with me. It is correct that in Exh. A there is nothing about the purchasing of ticket either by me or somebody else. The ticket of all the person was with my son. I do not know whether any ticket was found from the dead body. Police had enquired from me and I had not given any ticket at the time of my statement. I had not given any ticket to the Advocate. I had not given any ticket to the police. Self stated that I was highly disturbed as the deceased was my only son."

7. Thus, from the plain reading of the cross-examination of Smt. Bassu Bai, it is clear that this witness had not given ticket to the Police at the time of recording of her statement. She has specifically stated that she did not give any ticket to the Advocate. She once again categorically admitted that she did not give any ticket to the Police. On the contrary, it was claimed by this witness that the ticket of all the persons was with her deceased son. Admittedly, no ticket was seized from the dead body of the deceased. Thus, it is clear that the appellants have failed to prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger.

8. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Claims tribunal did not commit any mistake by holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.

9. Ex-consequenti, the award dated 31.01.2019 passed by Member (Technical), Bhopal in case No. O.A./IIu/BPL.2014/0381 is hereby affirmed.

10. The Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Shanu

Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2023.02.21 17:34:58 +05'30'