Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashvani Devangan vs Union Of India on 18 June, 2024
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 18th OF JUNE, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 6634 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
ASHWANI DEVANGAN AND ANOTHER
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI M. SHAFIQULLAH - ADVOCATE )
AND
UNION OF INDIA
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI C.M. TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 18.03.2024
Pronounced on : 18.06.2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the Court passed the following:
ORDER
This Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Act,
1989 has been filed against the order dated 12.09.2019 passed by the
Railway Claims Tribunal in case No. OA-IIu/BPL/2014/464 (Ashwani
Devangan and another Vs. Union of India) by which the claim petition for
compensation on account of death of their son Harish Devangan in
untoward incident has been rejected by the claims Tribunal on the ground
that untoward accident is not proved. It was not proved that the deceased
was a bonafide passenger and for the reasons mentioned in the order, the
claim petition has been rejected. Against the rejection order, the appeal has
been filed on the ground that untoward accident is proved. It is proved that
deceased was a bonafide passenger. Learned Claims Tribunal failed to
appreciate the facts as mentioned in the application as well as evidence
and, therefore, rejected the claim petition. Hence, prayer is made for award
of compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/-.
2. Learned counsel for the Union of India supported the order passed
by the Claims Tribunal.
3. Perused the record and considered the arguments.
4. Learned counsel for the claimants Mr. Mohd. Shafiqullah placed
reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kamukayi and others Vs. Union of India; AIR 2023 SC 2761 and
Sanyokta Devi Vs. Union of India; Civil Appeal No. 770/2023,
judgment dated 2.2.2023 to support his case.
5. On perusal of the record, it is seen that before the Claims Tribunal
Ex. P/1 was police investigation report in which death of Harish Devangan
is said to have taken place at KM NO-848/18-A opposite H Cabin Building
BMY Charoda and Merg Enquiry under 174 of Cr.P.C. No. 92/28/2012
was registered in which it is held that Harish Devangan died due to an
accident while alighting from some train. Photocopy of ticket Annexure
P/4 is attached which is dated 3.12.2012 from Bhilai to Durg. In the claim
petition before the learned Tribunal it is stated that deceased on 03.12.2012
went to Durg from Bhilai but he expired on 04.12.2012 and this
information was received at about 08:45 p.m. The ticket number seized is
15587568. In column 7 of the application it is written by the claimants that
ticket number as mentioned above is regarding going to Durg from Bhilai
but while returning from Durg to Bhilai that ticket is "lost".
6. As a witness before the Tribunal, mother of the deceased Smt.
Umabai Devangan has appeared and friend of deceased Harish, Premchand
Chandrakar has also appeared. Premchand Chandrakar, in his cross-
examination, stated on 1.7.2015 that incident did not take place before
him. He got the information from his friend whose name is not mentioned.
Smt. Umabai is also not an eye-witness as reflected from her affidavit
under Order 18, Rule 4 of C.P.C.
7. Learned Claims Tribunal has considered all the facts and legal
position and dismissed the claim petition. The judgments relied upon by
the learned counsel for the appellant i.e, Kamukayi (Supra) and
Sanyokta Devi (Supra) are different on facts. In the facts of the case of
Kamukayi, Hon'ble Supreme Court had found that the allegations in the
claim petition are proved and in that case, it was also held that initial
burden that the deceased was having a valid ticket was also discharged by
the claimant, which is not the case in the matter before this Court in
appeal.
8. Regarding the case of Sanyokta (Supra), again facts of that case
and the matter under appeal are different. In the case of Sanyokta also it
was proved that respondent did not deny that deceased had purchased a
valid railway ticket and he fell down from the train but in the present case
under appeal, there is no allegation that the deceased had purchased the
ticket or he was alighting from the train at the platform. The spot from
which his body was recovered was not platform. There is no pleading in
the application that due to heavy rush/ pushing/ jerk in the compartment,
he fell down. In fact it is not pleaded that by which train he was returning
from Durg to Bhilai. On this aspect affidavits of Premchand Chandrakar
and Smt .Ushabai Devangan are silent, therefore, considering all facts this
Court is also of the considered view that no interference can be made in the
order of learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the impugned order of
learned Claims Tribunal dated 12.09.2019 is affirmed and the appeal is
dismissed.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
VSG
