Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brajbhan Sahu vs Union Of India on 10 May, 2024
Author: Amar Nath Kesharwani
Bench: Amar Nath Kesharwani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.299 OF 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. BRAJBHAN SAHU S/O LATE CHHOTEL
SAHU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION
LABOUR R/O VILLAGE KADDAI KHURD, POST
KHADDI-KALA, POLICE STATION RAMPUR,
NAIKIN, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. RAMBAI, W/O SHRI BRAJBHAN
SAHU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION
HOUSEWIFE R/O VILLAGE KADDAI KHURD,
POST KHADDI-KALA, POLICE STATION
RAMPUR, NAIKIN, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
AND
UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH GENERAL
MANAGER, WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY,
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SITARAM GARG - ADVOCATE)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heard on : 12/02/2024
Passed on : 10/05/2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANURAG SONI
Signing time: 10-05-2024
16:24:46
2
This appeal having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement on this day, Justice Amar Nath (Kesharwani)
pronounced the following :
ORDER
This Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been preferred against the judgment
dated 27/08/2021 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench,
Bhopal (M. P.) in Claim Case No.OA-IIu/BPL/2014/0496, by which the
claim petition filed by the appellants under Section 16 of Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been rejected on the ground that the
appellants have failed to prove that deceased Manoj Sahu was bonafide
passenger.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by
claimants / appellants before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal for
the compensation due to the death of their son Manoj Sahu alleging that
on 12/08/2014 the deceased, who was unmarried was travelling in
general compartment from "Beohari to Surat" by Chopan-Katni
Passenger Train and during the journey when train reached at "Vijay
Shrota" Railway Station, he fell down from the train due to jerk of
public and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. In the claim
petition claimants stated that the deceased was holding valid general
ticket No.48251494 from Beohari to Surat. Hence, claimants claimed a
sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Four lakhs) as compensation.
3. The stand of the respondent before the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bhopal was that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as no
journey ticket was seized from the person of deceased. It was alleged
that the deceased was travelling at the gate of the train and was listening
music by using earphone and he fell down from the running train due to
his own negligence at Km.No.1159/5-6. Hence, claimants are not
entitled for any compensation and prayed for dismissal of petition.
4. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, Railway
Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the deceased
was not a bonafide passenger. Being aggrieved by the impugned
judgment, present appeal has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Railway
Claims Tribunal has erred in holding that the deceased was not a
bonafide passenger as he was not holding the ticket while travelling in
the train, while co-passenger Rambhajan Pandey who was travelling
with the deceased has clearly stated in his statement, which was
recorded during the investigation that on the date of incident i.e.
12/08/2014 he was travelling with deceased and he purchased two
tickets worth of Rs.340/- (Three hundred forty) to travel by train from
Beohari to Surat and he kept the ticket with him. It is further submitted
that the claimants have produced the ticket, in which ticket
No.48251494 is mentioned. So the finding of the learned Tribunal that
deceased was not a bonafide passenger is erroneous. It is further
submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that deceased
jumped or fell down from the running train due to his own negligence,
so the presumption ought to have been drawn in favour of
appellants/claimants that the deceased died in an untoward incident
while he was travelling in the train. Learned counsel further submitted
that the claimants have proved their case by adducing oral and
documentary evidence and respondent has not adduced any evidence in
rebuttal. On the strength of above submissions, learned counsel prayed
to set aside the impugned judgment and to pass the award in favour of
appellants as prayed in the claim petition. In support of his contentions
learned counsel for appellant placed reliance on the judgment passed by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi,
(2019) 3 SCC 572 and Kamukayi & Others Vs. Union of India &
Others.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased purchased
ticket while travelling in the train. It is submitted that the
appellants/claimants have not examined co-passenger Rambhajan
Pandey to prove the fact that he also purchased the ticket for deceased.
It is submitted that at the time of investigation no ticket was recovered
from the body of the deceased, therefore, the findings of the learned
Railway Claims Tribunal that deceased was not a bonafide passenger is
just and proper. It is also submitted that the finding of the learned
Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of evidence, hence no
interference is required and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the rival parties, perused the record and gone through the citations
upon which reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellants.
8. It is not disputed in the case that claimants are the parents of
deceased Manoj Sahu. It is also not disputed that cause of death of
deceased Manoj Sahu is the injuries caused to him due to fall from
running Train No.51680 - Katni Chopan Passenger nearby Vijay Shrota
Railway Station (Shrota Mahroi Station KM No.1159/06-09). Hence,
the only question for consideration in the case is whether the deceased
was a bonafide passenger and he expired due to untoward incident as
defined in Section 123(c) of the Railway Act, 1989.
9. Learned tribunal in Para-11 of impugned judgment has concluded
that it is not proved that deceased fell down from the train. Learned
tribunal has disbelieved the DRM report (Ex. R-1) and concluded that at
the time of incident deceased was not travelling in any train, but died
due to being hit or collided with a train while negligently crossing the
railway line, which does not come under the definition of Section 123(c)
of the Railway Act, 1989 and dismissed the claim of claimants.
10. Whereas in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent
before the Tribunal it has not been denied that the deceased sustained
injuries due to fall from the running train and due to those injuries
deceased died. In Para-3 of written statement it is pleaded that "it is
submitted that the deceased was travelling at the gate of the coach
and further using earphone for listening songs and fallen down at
KM No.1159/5-6 due to own negligent act, therefore, incident
occurred due to gross negligence of the deceased".
11. Hence, respondent has not denied the fact that deceased was
travelling in the train No.51680 at the time of incident and due to fall
from the train, he sustained injuries and succumbed. Therefore, the
finding of the tribunal that at the time of incident deceased was not
travelling in any train, but died due to being hit or collided with a train
while negligently crossing the railway line, is based on conjecture and
surmises and against pleading of the parties of the case and documents
placed on record, which is not sustainable in law and is hereby set aside.
12. The conclusion part of DRM report (Ex. R-1) is reproduced here-
in-below :-
fu"d"kZ %& tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk tkap nkSjku ekey s es a rF;ksa ,oa
nLrkostksa ls ;g ik;k x;k fd e`rd fnukad 12-8-2014 dks C;kSgkjh ls
lwjr rd mlds lg;k=h ds lkFk Vªsu ua- 51680 dVuh&pkSiu iSlsatj
ls Vªsu ds njokts ij cSBdj @ [kM+s gksdj nksuksa dkuksa es a bZ;j Qksu
yxkdj xkuk lqurs gq;s ;k=k djrs le; fot; lksrk & egjksbZ
lsD'ku esa fdeh- ua- 1159@5&6 ds e/; vpkud fxj x;kA
ftlls ?kVuk LFky ij gh mldh e`R;q gks xbZA e`rd }kjk Vªsu ds
njokts ij cSBdj @ [kM+s gksdj nksuksa dkuksa es a bZ;j Qksu yxkdj
xkuk lqurs gq;s ykijokgh iwoZd ;k=k djuk mldh Lo;a dh ykijokgh
gSA blesa jsy ç'kklu dh dksbZ xyrh ugha ikbZ xbZA rFkk ;g ?kVuk
jsy vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 123 ¼x½ ds varxZr ugha vkrhA vr% nkokdrkZ
Jh c`tHkku lkgw ru; }kjk e`rd eukst lkgw ds laca/k esa fd;k x;k
nkok ns; ugha gSA
tkap vf/kdkjh Jh jes'k flag mifujh-@jslqc@dVuh }kjk çsf"kr
tkap fjiksVZ esa fot; lksrk LVs'ku dh Mk;jh dh udy] e`rd ds firk
o lg;k=h ds dFkuks a dh Nk;kçfr] bUMsDl ds'k Mk;jh dh Nk;kçfr]
LVs'ku C;kSgkjh ds esek s dh Nk;kçfr] iapk;rukek vkosnu i= dh
Nk;kçfr] exZ baVhes'ku dh Nk;kçfr] uD'kk iapk;rukek dh Nk;kçfr]
vijk/k fooj.k QkeZ dh Nk;kçfr] iqfyl }kjk fy;s x;s xokgks a ds
dFkuksa dh Nk;kçfr;ka] fVfdV ua- 48251494 fnukad 12-8-2014 EX
C;kSgkjh ls lwjr rd dh Nk;kçfr] 'ko lqiqnZxh dh Nk;kçfr] ,oa vU;
nLrkostksa dh Nk;kçfr layXu dj vfxze dk;Zokgh gsrq çsf"kr gSA
13. Hence, considering the DRM report (Ex.R-1) which was prepared
under the "Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward
Incidents) Rules, 2020" in due course of investigation and accpeted by
the concerned DRM, it is proved that deceased Manoj Sahu expired due
to injuries sustained after falling from running train, when deceased was
sitting on the foot-board.
14. Respondent denied the claim on the ground that deceased was
most careless and negligent about his personal safety and thereby
exposed his life to the utmost danger, which tantamounting to self
inflicted injury under one of the exception of Section 124A of the
Railways Act. It is also stated in Para-3 of written statement that when
the incident occurred due to travelling in the negligent manner as
standing at the door, travelling on roof, footsteps, foot board and also
tries to board and alight into or from the running train, which is
prohibited and an offence under Section 154 and 156 of the Railways
Act, 1989 and in such case, no compensation is payable by the Railway
administration.
15. Now I have to consider whether falling due to being pushed or
jerked by a co-passenger while travelling on the gate of the train will
cover under the purview of Sections 154 or 156 of the Railways Act,
1989. Section 154 and 156 of the Railways Act, 1989 are reproduced
here-in-below :-
154. Endangering safety of persons traveling by railway by
rash of negligent act or omission.- If any person in rash and
negligent manner does any act, or omits to do what he is legally
bound to do, and the act of omission is likely to endanger the safety
of any person traveling or being upon any railway, he shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one
year, or with fine of with both.
156. Travelling on roof, step or engine of a train.-- If any
passenger or any other person, after being warned by a railway
servant to desist, persists in travelling on the roof, step or footboard
of any carriage or on an engine, or in any other part of a train not
intended for the use of passengers, he shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or
with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both
and may be removed from the railway by any railway servant.
16. There is nothing on record to show that any such act or omission
as mentioned in Section 154 of the Railways Act, 1989 has been
committed by the deceased.
17. Section 156 of the Railways Act, 1989 prohibits the passenger to
travel on roof, step or footboard of any carriage or on an engine, or in
any other part of a train not intended for the use of passengers. As per
the DRM report (Ex.R-1) at the time of incident the deceased was
travelling at the gate of the general coach in standing/sitting position by
using earphone and fallen down. Appellants have not got examined any
eyewitness in support of their claim petition, even they have not
adduced co-passenger Ram Bhajan Pandey as witness before the
Tribunal, whose statement was recorded during the investigation.
18. Claimant No.2 Smt. Rambai Sahu has stated in her cross-
examination that at the time of incident she was not accompanied with
the deceased and she did not see the deceased purchasing ticket or
boarding train or fall from the train. Even if we accept the statement of
Ram Bhajan Pandey which was recorded during investigation, it reveals
that at the time of incident, deceased was travelling at standing position
at the gate, despite he told him to come and sit on seat, but he did not
listen. Hence, in absence of any other evidence, it is found proved that at
the time of incident deceased was travelling in the train in standing
position at the gate, which is also called as foot-board.
19. Travelling on roof, foot-steps or foot-board is a punishable
offence under Section 156 of the Railways Act, 1989. Since it is evident
from the material available on record that deceased Manoj Sahu expired
due to his own criminal act, which comes under the proviso (c) of
Section 124-A of the Railway Act. Hence, claimants are not entitled to
get any compensation for the death of their son Manoj Sahu in the
alleged untoward incident.
20. Hence, appeal stands dismissed.
21. Let record of the Tribunal be sent back to the concerned Tribunal
alongwith copy of this order.
(AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE
as
