Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Devki vs Union Of India on 27 March, 2023
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 27 th OF MARCH, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 2739 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. DEVKI W/O LATE SHRI KRISHNA KUMAR YADAV,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O GALI NO.6, MANGAL BAZAR,
IDGAH BHATA THANA, AJAD CHOWK, RAIPUR DISTT.
RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH)
2. MANISH S/O LATE SHRI KRISHNA KUMAR YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, GALI NO. 6 MANGAL BAZAR IDGAH
BHATA THANA AJAD CHOWK, RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH)
3. PURNENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI KRISHNA KUMAR
YADAV, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, GALI NO. 6 MANGAL
BAZAR IDGAH BHATA THANA AJAD CHOWK, RAIPUR
(CHHATTISGARH)
4. KU. BHARTI, D/O LATE SHRI KRISHNA KUMAR YADAV,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, GALI NO. 6 MANGAL BAZAR
IDGAH BHATA THANA AJAD CHOWK, RAIPUR
(CHHATTISGARH)
.....PETITIONERS
(NONE)
AND
UNION OF INDIA THR.GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH EAST
CENTRAL RAILWAY, BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH)
.....RESPONDENT
(NONE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
Signature Not Verified
SAN
On a call given by the State Bar Council of M.P. the Lawyers are abstaining from
work in spite of letter dated 22.03.2023, issued by the Bar Council of India thereby
Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA
Date: 2023.03.31 10:46:52 IST
requested the State Bar Council of M.P. to follow the various dictums passed by the
Supreme Court from time to time in respect of strike. Even then none appeared for the
appellant.
2. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 24.03.2023 passed in In Reference
(Suo Moto) Vs. Chairman, State Bar Council of M.P. & others (W.P.
No.7295/2023) has issued the following directions:
(i) All the advocates throughout the State of Madhya Pradesh are
hereby directed to attend to their court work forthwith. They shall
represent their clients in the respective cases before the respective
courts forthwith;
(ii) If any lawyer deliberately avoids to attend the court, it shall be
presumed that there is disobedience of this order and he will be faced
with serious consequences including initiation of proceedings for
contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act;
(iii) If any lawyer prevents any other lawyer from attending the court
wo rk, the same would be considered as disobedience of these
directions and he will be faced with serious consequences including
initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act;
(iv) Each of the judicial officers are directed to submit a report as to
which lawyer has deliberately abstained from attending the court;
(v) The judicial officers shall also mention the names of advocates
who have prevented other advocates from entering the court premises
or from conducting their cases in the court;
(vi) Such advocates shall be dealt with seriously which may even
include proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act as well as
being debarred from practice.
3. In spite of that Lawyers are abstaining from Court work.
4. Under these circumstances, this Court has no other option but to issue notice to the
counsels for the appellant as well as to the counsels for the respondents to show cause
Signature Not Verified
SAN as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them for violating the order
dated 24.03.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case Chairman,
Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA
Date: 2023.03.31 10:46:52 IST
State Bar Council of M.P. and others (supra).
5. Office is directed to register separate proceedings for the same.
6. This Misc. Appeal under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal, 1987 has been
filed against the judgment dated 17/01/2019 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal
Bench, Bhopal in Case no. OA/IIu/BPL/2013/513.
7. The facts of the case, in short, are that on 10/10/2013 the dead body of deceased
Krishna Kumar Yadav was found at Railway tracks. The claims Tribunal has come to a
conclusion that not only the deceased was not a bonafide passenger but also did not die
in an untoward incident.
8. It is mentioned in the memo of appeal that the Claims Tribunal has erred in not
appreciating the facts and circumstances in proper prospective.
9. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger or not?
10. Undisputedly, no travelling ticket was seized from the dead body of the deceased.
However, 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 bonafide
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.â€
Signature Not Verified
SAN
11. Thus, where an affidavit is filed by a witness to the effect that the deceased has
purchased the ticket in his presence then the burden shifts on the respondent to prove
Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA
Date: 2023.03.31 10:46:52 IST
that the deceased was not travelling with a validly issued railway ticket.
12. In the present case, the appellants have examined Purnendra Kumar Yadav, s/o of
deceased Krishna Kumar Yadav. Although, in his affidavit filed under Order 18 Rule 4
C.P.C., he has mentioned that the deceased was travelling alongwith the validly issued
second class general ticket, but in his cross examination, he has specifically stated that
his father had not purchased the ticket in his presence and at the time of the incident, he
was in his house and has not witnessed the incident. He claimed that the information was
given by the police. He further claimed that the facts mentioned in the affidavit with
regard to the railway ticket are based on the information given by the police. Thus, the
appellants have failed to discharge their initial burden that the deceased had purchased the
ticket. Therefore, the burden never shifted on to the respondent to prove that the
deceased was not travelling after purchasing the railway ticket.
13. Since, this Court has already come to a conclusion that the deceased was not a
bonafide passenger, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by considering as to
whether he has died in an untoward incident or not.
14. Accordingly, the judgment dated 17/01/2019 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bhopal Bench, Bhopal in Case no. OA/IIu/BPL/2013/513 is hereby affirmed. The appeal
fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
m/-
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA
Date: 2023.03.31 10:46:52 IST
