Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajni vs Union Of India on 15 May, 2024
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 15 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 3451 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. RAJNI W/O LATE SHRI SANJESH KUMAR YAGNIK,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE R/O VILLAGE SIHRI POST SIHRI
MODHAGADH, DISTRICT JALON (UTTAR
PRADESH)
2. AMAY S/O LATE SHRI SANJESH KUMAR YAGNIK,
AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, OCCUPATION: THROUGH
LEGAL GUARDIAN RAJNI YAGNIK AGE 7 YEARS
OCCUPATION STUDENT ADDRESS VILLAGE SIHRI
POST SIHRI MODHAGADH DISTRICT (UTTAR
PRADESH)
3. SHANTI DEVI W/O LATE SHRI SUKHLAL YAGNIK,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE ADDRESS VILLAGE SIHRI POST
SIHRI MODHAGADH DISTRICT (UTTAR PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI ABHISHEK SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER
WESTERN RAILWAY CHURCHGATE MUMBAI
(MAHARASHTRA)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI DEVESH BHOJNE - ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally at motion stage.
2.This miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 23
of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against judgement dated 16.01.2023
passed in Case No.OA-IIU/BPL/96/2019 by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal
Bench whereby, appellants' claim petition has been dismissed, seeking setting
aside of impugned judgment and grant of suitable compensation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that on 19.05.2017 at about 4:00
p.m. in the evening, P.S. Narwar District-Ujjain was informed that dead body of
a person has been found near Railway track. In postmortem report, cause of
death is mentioned as injury on the head. On 20.06.2017, S.P. Ujjain submitted
a report to SDM (A/1), wherein, it is mentioned that deceased fell from running
train and thereby, sustained injury in the head and succumbed to the same.
Annexure A/7 is a ticket of 19.05.2017 from Indore to Ujjain and this ticket has
been verified by Railway and it was found to have been issued on 19.05.2017.
Further, learned counsel for the appellants has also referred to clause-6 of DRM
report (R/1), to submit that from above clause, death of deceased is clearly
established from fall from the train and therefore, it comes within the purview of
untoward incident. Tribunal has wrongly held that police has prepared fake
documents/forged documents and action taken by the police are vitiated.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants, after relying upon Kamukayi and Ors
Vs. Union of India and Ors. 2023 SCC Online SC 642 and Smt. Sadhna Vs.
Union of India through its General Manager Central Railway High Court
of Judicature at Bombay passed in First Appeal No.210 of 2021 vide order
dated 29.08.2023, submits that appellants have filed affidavit showing that
deceased has purchased ticket and he was having valid ticket and thereby, a
bonafide passenger. No evidence in rebuttal has been filed on behalf of
respondents. On above grounds, it is urged that appeal be allowed and suitable
compensation be awarded.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, after referring to impugned judgment,
submits that Tribunal has rightly held that there is no cogent evidence with
respect to recovery of ticket and there is nothing on record to show that for
whom and how tickets were seized. No seizure memo is on record. Therefore,
tickets Annexure (A/7) cannot be relied upon to establish that deceased was a
bonafide passenger. Tribunal has rightly held that it is not proved that deceased
fell from train and incident does not come within the purview of untoward
incident. Hence, Tribunal has rightly dismissed appellant's claim petition. No
interference is required in the same.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.
7. So far as untoward incident is concerned, perusal of Annexure (A/1) as well
as DRM report (R/1) clearly reveal that at the time of accident, deceased was
travelling in train and he fell from train and thereby, sustained injury and later on
succumbed to the same. Therefore, from A/1 and R/1, it is clearly established
that death of deceased comes within the purview of untoward incident as
defined under Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989.
8. Now next issue before this Court is whether deceased is proved to be a
bonafide passenger. From documents available on record, it is clearly
established that in the instant case, no ticket was found along with body of
deceased/along with articles found along with the body of deceased. As per
Annexure A/4, a bag was recovered along with the body of the deceased but
therein, no ticket has been found. Further, it is also evident from record of the
case that no ticket has been found from person/body of the deceased.
9. In the instant case, claimants have filed Annexure A/7, which contains
photocopy of four tickets and this photocopy has been signed by in-charge
police station Narwar District-Ujjain as TC and out of them, one ticket pertains
to the date of accident i.e. 19.05.2017. As per DRM report R/1, above ticket
has been verified and it has been issued on 19.05.2017 from Indore Station.
10. But it is not clear from record of the case as to how police station Narvar,
District-Ujjain got tickets, Annexure A/7 and from where/from whom/when and
how above ticket has been seized by the Police. There is no seizure memo on
record with respect to above tickets. Police Officer, seized/get above tickets,
has not been examined. No ticket has been recovered from place of accident.
Appellants have not lead any evidence to clarify above material facts, especially,
they have not examined concerned police officer, who got tickets Annexure
(A/7). Therefore, from Annexure A/7, it is not established that deceased was
travelling with valid ticket and he was a bonafide passenger.
11. Principles laid down in Smt. Sadhna (Supra) and Kamukayi (Supra) do not
apply to the facts of the case as in both the above cases no train tickets were
recovered.
12. Hence, in view of discussion in the foregoing paras, in this Court's opinion,
from evidence on record, it is not established that at the time of accident,
deceased was having a valid train ticket and he was a bonafide passenger.
Therefore, appellants are not entitled to receive any compensation.
13. Hence, appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
vai
