Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Nirala Bai Sharma vs Union Of India on 9 August, 2024
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
1 MA-2795-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 9 th OF AUGUST, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 2795 of 2020
SMT. NIRALA BAI SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Appearance:
Shri M.Shafiqullah - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms.Kanak Gaharwar - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This appeal has been filed against judgment dated 06.3.2020 passed by
Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, Bhopal (for short the "Tribunal")
in OA/IIu/BPL/040/2017 filed under section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987 by the parents of the deceased-Bhupendra Kumar who
died in railway untoward incident which occurred on 20.11.2020.
2. The basic facts of the case are that Bhupendra Kumar s/o
Shivom Sharma was travelling from Bhopal to Vidisha after purchasing
general class ticket. When the train was running his head accidently hit the
Pole by the side of Railway Track when he peed out of Door and he fell
inside the train. Immediately after the incident 108 Ambulance was called
and he was taken to the Government Hospital and thereafter he was declared
dead. The ticket purchased by the deceased was lost during the course of
incident. Since the accident occurred as untoward incident and deceased was
2 MA-2795-2020
bonafide passengers therefore, the parents of deceased filed claim petition
before the Tribunal.
3. The reply of the Railway Departmetn alongwith report of DRM
denies the claim petition but they admitted the fact that deceased was
travelling in the train and accident occurred inside the train. However, it is
submitted by them that deceased died due to own negligence.
4. In support of their case the appellants examined appellant No.2
who was not the eye witness and also examined Suryakant who was
travelling in the same train. They also examined Anil Sharma to prove the
case.
5. The Tribunal held that deceased was not the bonafide passenger
and since he did not fall outside the train, therefore, dismissed the claim
petition.
6. This appeal has been filed on the ground that evidence has not
been properly assessed. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the case law
which covers such a situation and is reported in the decision of Union of
India Vs. Radha Yadav , (2019) 3 SCC 410. Learned counsel in support of
their of case have referred to paragraphs 2 to 5 and 12 of the aforesaid
decision, which are as follows:-
"2. While travelling from Burdwan Railway Station to Howrah
Railway Station on 2-10-2003 in a local train one Dasarath Yadav
had peeped his head out of the compartment door and his head
collided with a post by the side of the railway track resulting in an
accident where he lost his life. The Railway Claims Tribunal,
Kolkata by its judgment and order dated 27-9-2007 found that the
3 MA-2795-2020
deceased was a bona fide railway passenger and that the incident
was an "untoward incident" in terms of the provisions of Section
123 of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act"). The Tribunal, however, found that the deceased was victim
of his own act and as such no compensation was payable.
3. The dismissal of the claim petition was challenged by the
respondent i.e. widow of the deceased by filing FMA No. 858 of
2012 in the High Court of Calcutta.
4. The Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents
(Compensation) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules)
provide for a Schedule prescribing the amount of compensation
payable in respect of death and injuries. During the pendency of
the matter by way of amendment, the amount of compensation
which was earlier at the level of Rs 4,00,000 in case of death was
raised to Rs 8,00,000.
5. It was found by the High Court [Radha Yadav v. Union of
India, 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 420 : (2017) 2 Cal LJ 609] that in
terms of Section 124-A of the Act the "Principle of Strict
Liability" would arise and as such the Tribunal was not right in
denying compensation to the respondent. While allowing the
appeal, the High Court held the respondent to be entitled to
compensation of Rs 8,00,000 with interest @ 9% p.a. The
judgment of the High Court in the present case was delivered on 3-
3-2017 [Radha Yadav v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Cal
420 : (2017) 2 Cal LJ 609] . The challenge raised by way of review
petition was also rejected on 30-11-2017 [Union of India v. Radha
Yadav, 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 18962] .
12. Consequently, we must hold that the High Court was in
error in awarding interest on the sum of Rs 8 lakhs in the instant
case. Where the accident had occurred before the amendment, it
ought to have considered the matter in the light of the principle
laid down in Rina Devi [Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3
SCC 572] . We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and
allow the appeals. However, the respondent, in any case, would not
be affected in any manner and will be entitled to the sum awarded
by the High Court."
4 MA-2795-2020
7. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment
of the Tribunal and claimed dismissed of instant appeal.
8. Considered the arguments of rival parties and perused the record.
From record it is seen that Anil Sharma, Station Master has stated that on
20.11.2016 Train No.11465 Down Somnath Express stopped at 09.32 hours
and left at 9.34 hours and there was ACP of two (02) minutes. He has filed
copy of concerned register. The eye witness- Suryakant Sharma is filed his
affidavit. He stated that deceased had kept the ticket in front pocket. The
incident is of Railway Station. He personally did not see the incident. He also
stated that co-passenger told him then he was leaning out of the train and his
head hit and he fell down inside the train.
9. On perusal of the report of Commissioner for Safety, Bhopal it
is seen that they have concluded that deceased went to the Bathroom and
then peeped out his head from Door of Compartment and at that time his
head was hit by some pole. Although it is submitted that Railway
Department is not liable for such accident.
10. It is also seen from the impugned judgment that learned Tribunal
observed that ticket was not recovered, therefore, it cannot be held that
deceased was bonafide passenger.
11. Considered the arguments and perused the record. In the facts and
circumstances of the case it cannot be presumed that there was no ticket
checking by the Officer of the Railway Department as has been held in the
case of Hariram Vs. Union of India , 2015 (1) MPHT 111 wherein in
5 MA-2795-2020
paragraphs 14 & 15 it has been observed thus:-
"14. The Railway has failed to examine any of its witnesses
to establish the fact that the deceased was travelling without
ticket. And since the deceased had boarded the train, the
presumption would be that he had valid authority to travel. The
Tribunal, therefore, was not justified in holding that the deceased
was not a bonafide passenger.
15. In this context reference can be had of a decision
rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Union of India
(UOI) Vs. Satish Patidar and Another, ; 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."
12. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case recovery of
ticket is of no consequence. Regarding peeping out of the train such a
situation is squarely covered by a decision in the case of Radha Yadav
(supra). Hence, appellants/claimants are entitled for the reliefs claimed.
Accordingly, judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. As the accident is of
20.11.2016, therefore, the appellants would be entitled for compensation of
Rs.4 lacs alongwith interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of accident
6 MA-2795-2020
till payment as has been held in paragraph 30 the case of Union of India Vs.
Reena Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572.
13. In the result, the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
RM
