Smt. Kranti Jain vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 16607 MP

                                                            1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                               ON THE 9 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                               MISC. APPEAL No. 2168 of 2021

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    SMT. KRANTI JAIN W/O LATE SHRI BALCHAND
                                 JAIN VILLAGE UMARIYA RAIYYAT POST SANAI
                                 P.S. TARADEI TEHSIL TENDUKHEDA DISTT.
                                 DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    KAILASH CHAND JAIN S/O LATE SHRI BALCHAND
                                 JAIN R/O VILL. UMARIYA RAIYYAT POST SANAI
                                 PS. TARADEI TAH TENDUKHEDA DAMOH
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    PRAKASH JAIN S/O LATE SHRI BALCHAND JAIN
                                 R/O VILL. UMARIYA RAIYYAT POST SANAI PS.
                                 TARADEI TAH TENDUKHEDA DAMOH (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           4.    MANISH KUMAR JAIN S/O LATE SHRI BALCHAND
                                 JAIN R/O VILL. UMARIYA RAIYYAT POST SANAI
                                 PS. TARADEI TAH TENDUKHEDA DAMOH
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....APPELLANTS
                           (BY MS.APARNA SINGH - ADVOCATE)

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

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

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

This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 10-10-2023 13:16:28

filed by the Claimants being aggrieved of judgment dated 24.6.2021 passed by learned Technical Member, Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, Bhopal in Case No.O.A-IIu/BPL/141/2018.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Railway Claims Tribunal has though considered a fact that Deceased Bal Chand Jain was a victim of an untoward incident but refused to accept him to be a bonafide passenger and overlooking the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India versus Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572 has rejected the claim petition.

Learned counsel for the respondent in his turn submits that the ratio of

law laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India versus Rina Devi (supra) while deciding the Issue No.3 i.e. in regard to burden of proof when the body found on railway premises is that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that the injured or deceased was a bonafide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with passenger will not negative the claim that he was a bonafide passenger. Initial burden on the claimant can be discharged by filing an affidavit of relevant facts and the burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances.

I have perused the affidavit filed by Appellant/Smt.Kranti Jain. The aforesaid affidavit is based on presumption,surmises and conjectures. In Paragraph No.3 of the affidavit, Smt.Kranti Jain states that the gates of the train may be open, as a result of which, while going to the toilet, there may be jerk in the train when the deceased lost his control and had fallen down from the

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 10-10-2023 13:16:28

moving train.

It is nowhere mentioned that the deceased had purchased the ticket and anybody had seen him purchasing the ticket while travelling from Jabalpur to Bhusawal and on the return journey. Another interesting fact, which has come on record is that no identification document was recovered from the possession of the deceased, as a result of which, he was buried treating him to be an unknown body and later on when this fact was notified then the body was exhumed and handed over to the relatives for performance of the last rites. Thus, the affidavit filed by Appellant/Smt.Kranti Jain is not sufficient to discharge the initial burden. An 81 years old person travelling to Bhusawal is fine but when he had gone there to attend a religious congregation then atleast the evidence of somebody from that congregation should have been brought on record to point out that he had participated in the congregation at Bhusawal.

Thus, in absence of any of these materials being proved, the initial burden was not discharged by the Claimants and, therefore, the impugned judgment dated 24.6.2021 passed by learned Technical Member, Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, Bhopal in Case No.O.A/IIu/BPL/141/2018 cannot be faulted with in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India versus Rina Devi (supra).

Accordingly, this Miscellaneous Appeal fails & is dismissed.

Let record of the Railway Claims Tribunal, if any, be sent back.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE amit

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 10-10-2023 13:16:28