Smt. Sangeeta Kachhi vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 3942 MP

                              1             M.A.No.5868/2018



IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            AT JABALPUR
                        BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
               ON THE 14th OF MARCH, 2023
               MISC. APPEAL No. 5868 of 2018
BETWEEN:-

1.    SMT. SANGEETA KACHHI W/O LATE
      SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR KACHHI,
      AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O VILL.
      BELA    P.S. GOSALPUR     DISTT.
      JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)



2.    KU. SIMRAN KACHHI D/O LATE SHRI
      SHRAVAN KUMAR KACHHI, AGED
      ABOUT 9 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
      MINOR     THROUGH      NATURAL
      GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. SANGEETA
      KACHHI   R/O   VILL. BELA   P.S.
      GOSALPUR     DISTT.   JABALPUR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)



3.    KU. SOMYA KACHHI D/O LATE SHRI
      SHRAVAN KUMAR KACHHI, AGED
      ABOUT 5 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
      MINOR     THROUGH      NATURAL
      GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. SANGEETA
      KACHHI   R/O   VILL. BELA   P.S.
      GOSALPUR     DISTT.   JABALPUR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)



4.    RAMASHRAY KACHHI S/O LATE SHRI
      CHUNNILAL, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
      R/O VILL. BELA P.S. GOSALPUR DISTT.
      JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)



5.    SMT.    PUSA     BAI    W/O   SHRI
      RAMASHRAY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
      R/O VILL. BELA P.S. GOSALPUR DISTT.
                                  2                    M.A.No.5868/2018


     JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)


                                                    .....APPELLANTS
(BY SMT.APARNA SINGH - ADVCOATE)

AND

UNION OF INDIA THR. GENERAL MANAGER
WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)


                                                   .....RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. KANAK GAHARWAR AND MS.NEHA SINGH BAGHEL -
ADVOCATES )
...................................................................................................

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

the following:

                            ORDER

This misc. appeal, under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, has been filed against the judgment dated 22.10.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, Bench Bhopal in Case No.OA/IIu/BPL/27/2017, by which the claim petition filed by the appellants under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been rejected on the ground that the appellants have failed to prove that the deceased Shravan Kumar Kachhi alias Sarman died in an untoward incident as well as they have also failed to prove that he was the bonafide passenger.

2. The crux of the matter in short, is that the appellants filed a claim petition on the ground that on 29.10.2016, the deceased, after purchasing a ticket of general class, was travelling in Itarsi-

Allahabad Passenger Train along with his companions Shani alias Ramkishore and Santu Kori and because of heavy rush in the train and the short period of stoppage at Railway Station, Gosalpur, he fell down from the moving train. He was immediately shifted to the Victoria Hospital by his companions and on 30.10.2016 the deceased Shravan Kumar succumbed to the injuries.

3. It was further claimed that the travelling ticket has misplaced in the incident and accordingly, the claim petition was filed for payment of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

4. The respondent relied upon the DRM report, in which it was held that the deceased Shravan Kumar had fallen down from the moving train on 29.10.2016 and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. But as the travelling ticket was not recovered, therefore, it was opined that he was not a bonafide passenger and it was also held that the deceased had ignored the security measures and was trying to deboard the moving train, therefore, he himself is responsible for the accident.

5. The Claims Tribunal, after framing issues and recording evidence, disbelieved the evidence of Shani alias Ramkishore (A.W.2), who had claimed himself to be an eyewitness and held that the deceased did not die in an untoward incident and was not a bonafide passenger.

6. Challenging the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that once the respondent itself has relied upon the report of DRM dated 20.05.2017 (Ex.R.1), in which it was held that the deceased has died because of fall from a

moving train at Gosalpur Station, then the Claims Tribunal should not have disbelieved the document of the respondent itself to hold that the deceased did not die in an untoward incident. It was further submitted that the admission made by the opposite party is the best evidence on which the appellant can rely. Furthermore, by referring to the statement of Shani alias Ramkishore (A.W.2), it is submitted that Shani alias Ramkishore was a companion, who was travelling along with the deceased and he has specifically stated about the incident. No suggestion was given to Shani alias Ramkishore in his cross-examination to the effect that the deceased or this witness was not travelling in the train.

7. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent has supported the findings given by the Claims Tribunal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

9. The respondent has relied upon the DRM report, which is statutory in nature and in the said report it has been opined that the deceased had died on 29.10.2016 by falling down from Allahabad- Itarsi Passenger Train at Gosalpur station. This finding is further supported by the evidence of Shani alias Ramkishore (A.W.2). In the teeth of the DRM report (E.R.1), the Claims Tribunal should not have disbelieved the documents relied upon by the respondent itself to hold that the deceased did not die in an untoward incident.

10. Thus the finding given by the Claims Tribunal that the deceased did not die in a rail accident, is hereby set aside.

11. So far as the non-recovery of the travelling ticket is concerned, the said question is no more res-integra. 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."

12. A 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."

13. Shani alias Ramkishore (A.W.2), who was travelling along with the deceased, in paragraph 2 of his affidavit has specifically stated that on 29.10.2016 they were travelling in Itarsi-Allahabad Passenger Train after purchasing the travelling ticket of general class. This witness has specifically denied the suggestion that all the three persons were travelling without any ticket.

14. In the light of the judgment delivered in the case of Reena Devi (supra) and Hariram (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that mere non-recovery of travelling ticket is not sufficient to hold that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.

15. Furthermore, the Railway has employed Ticket Checkers, whose duty is to ensure that no person without ticket travels in a

train. There is nothing on record to suggest that the deceased was ever found to be travelling without ticket.

16. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal has committed material illegality by dismissing the claim of the appellants.

17. For the reasons mentioned above, the judgment dated 22.10.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, Bench Bhopal in Case No.OA/IIu/BPL27/2017 is hereby set aside. Since the untoward incident took place on 29.10.2016 i.e. prior to the amendment in the notification issued under section 124-A of the Railways Act, accordingly, it is directed that the appellants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs.Four Lacs only).

18. The appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.

(G.S.AHLUWALIA) JUDGE TG/-

TRUPTI GUNJAL 2023.03.17 18:16:01 +05'30'