Madhya Pradesh High Court
Radha Soni vs Union Of India on 15 May, 2024
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 15th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 1227 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. RADHA SONI W/O LATE SHRI MOHANLAL
SONI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O NO. 566,
VIVEKANAND WARD, NEAR HANUMAN
MANDIR, WARD NO. 38, KATNI, DISTT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. AJAY KUMAR SONI S/O LATE SHRI
MOHANLAL SONI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O NO. 566, VIVEKANAND WARD, NEAR
HANUMAN MANDIR, WARD NO. 38, KATNI,
DISTT (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ANAND KUMAR SONI S/O LATE SHRI
MOHANLAL SONI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O NO. 566, VIVEKANAND WARD, NEAR
HANUMAN MANDIR, WARD NO. 38, KATNI,
DISTT (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI M. SHAFIQULLAH ADVOCATE)
AND
UNION OF INDIA THR GENERAL MANAGER
WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY JABALPUR M.P
DISTT. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DEVESH BHOJNE -ADVOCATE )
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 01-06-2024
15:45:10
ORDER
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard
finally at motion stage.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 23 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated
01.03.2021 passed in claim application no. O.A.IIU/39/2017 by
(Member Technical), Bhopal Bench, Bhopal seeking setting aside of
impugned judgment and for grant of suitable compensation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that at the time of
accident, deceased was travelling in the train and he fell down from
the running train and thereby sustained injuries and later on
succumbed to the same. Therefore, death of deceased comes within the
purview of untoward incident. It is also urged that at the time of
accident, deceased was having valid train ticket and ticket has been
recovered as per Annexure A/7 from deceased's Bhanja on
21.11.2016. It is also urged that if a person is having train ticket, he
can travel from any train and claim cannot be dismissed just on the
ground that deceased was travelling in wrong train. It is also urged that
respondent has not adduced any evidence in rebuttal. With respect to
above, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Balika Prasad
Vs. Union of India, decided on 25.1.2023 (FAO No.1046/2019), Smt.
Vinodamma and others Vs. Union of India AIR 2010 Karnataka 174,
Smt. Sushilabai and others Vs. Union of India 2013 (2) MPHT 499
and Jameela and others V. Union of India (2010) 12 SCC 443. On
above grounds, it is urged that impugned award be set aside and
suitable compensation be awarded.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that no train ticket was
recovered along with body of deceased. Deceased was not having
valid train ticket at the time of accident. In the instant case, from
evidence on record, it is not established that deceased was a bona fide
passenger. This aspect of the matter has been discussed by the
Tribunal in para 9 of the impugned judgment. As in the instant case,
ticket has been allegedly recovered at the instance of the Bhanja of
deceased. Therefore, principle laid down in Union of India Vs. Rina
Devi, AIR 2018 SC 2362 would not apply to the facts of the case. On
above grounds, it is urged that appeal filed by the appellant be
dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the case.
6. So far as death of deceased is concerned, from Annexures A/1, A/2,
A/5 and other evidence on record, it is evident that at the time of
accident, deceased was travelling in train and either he fell down from
the train or he got injured while deboarding from running train. In this
Court's opinion, in both the cases incident would come within the
purview of untoward incident as defined in Section 124A of the
Railway Act, 1989. Therefore, in this Court's opinion, it is established
that death of deceased comes within the purview of untoward incident.
7. Now question arises as to whether at the time of accident, deceased
was having any valid train ticket and whether he was a bona fide
passenger ?
8. Admittedly, in the instant case, nothing has been recovered along
with the body/from body of the deceased\from scene of accident.
9. In the instant case, appellants have filed seizure memo Annex.A/7
and train ticket A/8 to establish that deceased was travelling with valid
train ticket. Seizure memo A/7 is dated 21.1.2016 whereas in the
instant case, accident occurred on 13.09.2016. As per seizure memo
(Annexure A/7) train ticket (Annexure A/8) has been seized from
Shivkant Soni. In seizure memo (Annexure A/7), it is nowhere
mentioned as to how Shivkant Soni got the train ticket/from whom and
from where and when Shivkant Soni got the train ticket Annexure A/8.
Thus, above facts are not mentioned in the seizure memo.
10. Appellants have examined Shivkant Soni as applicant
witness and he has stated in examination-in-chief that when his
maternal uncle Mohanlal (deceased) fell down from the train and got
injured, he telephoned him and thereafter, he reached at the station.
Applicant witness Shivkant Soni has also stated in examination-in-
chief that when he reached the station, his maternal uncle Mohanlal
gave him his articles including purse, his ticket from Katni to
Mandibamora and other articles, in the presence of police.
11. Perusal of cross examination of applicant witness Shivkant
Soni reveals that he has admitted in his cross-examination that he was
not travelling with his maternal uncle Mohanlal (deceased) when he
reached platform, GRP was already there. At that time, GRP did not
make any seizure memo from him. RPF has recorded his statement on
20.05.2017. The statement was shown to him and it was confirmed by
him and it bears his signature. In the statement given before the RPF,
he has not stated that his maternal uncle had given ticket and other
articles to him. It is correct that ticket was seized by GRP after two
months 8 days from him. He has neither given these items to police.
Thus, in view of deposition of applicant witness Shivkant Soni,
especially, his cross -examination, Shivkant does not appear to be a
reliable and trustworthy witness on the point that deceased had given
him ticket and other articles immediately after the incident at
Mandibamora station.
12. Further, conduct of deceased Mohanlal also appears to be
highly improbable and unnatural so far as it relates to providing ticket
to Shivkant Soni immediately after the incident in injured condition.
Further, there is omission with respect to the fact that deceased had
given the ticket to Shivkant Soni as this fact is not mentioned in
Shivkant Soni statement recorded by RPF on 20.05.2017.
13. Therefore, in view of above, in the considered opinion of this
Court, applicant witness Shivkant Soni is not a reliable and
trustworthy witness on the point that deceased had given him train
ticket immediately after the accident. Therefore, it cannot be said that
deceased was having a valid train ticket at the time of accident and he
was a bona fide passenger.
14. In Balika Prasad (supra), deceased was travelling along with his
friends and ticket was recovered from one of his friends. In the instant
case, it is not so. Smt. Vinodamma (supra) relates to case where a
person have purchased the ticket but he is said to have been found
travelling in another train, Smt. Sushila Bai (supra) and Jameela
(supra) also does not apply to the facts of the present case on account
of factual difference in the cases.
13. Hence, in view of discussion in the forgoing paras, appeal
filed by the appellant is dismissed.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
Hashmi
