Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Rukani Bai @ Chandrawati Kol vs Union Of India on 23 April, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18455
1 MA-474-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 23rd OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 474 of 2022
SMT. RUKANI BAI @ CHANDRAWATI KOL AND OTHERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Appearance:
Shri Shafiqullah - Advocate for the appellants/claimants.
Shri Gopi Chourasiya - Advocate for the respondent/Union of India.
JUDGMENT
This appeal was heard and reserved for final order on 11/02/2024.
2. This Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section
23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, being aggrieved by the judgment
dated 29/04/2019 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in
Case No. OA/IIu/BPL/2016/46 (Smt. Rukani Bai @ Chandravati Kol &
others vs. Union of India) whereby the learned Claims Tribunal dismissed
the claim application of the appellants/claimants for compensation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Bhopal has rejected the claim application filed on account of death
of Tingu Kol in a railway untoward incident occurred on 09/10/2015 when
the deceased was travelling from Bina to Katni after purchasing a general
ticket. During the course of journey he accidently fell down from the running
train and he was taken to the hospital for treatment where he died. The ticket
was seized by the police during investigation. He was a bonafide passenger.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18455
2 MA-474-2022
Applicants are the wife, son and daughters of the deceased.
4. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants
submitted that respondent/Union of India denied the claim of the appellants.
It is submitted that appellant No.1 Rukani Bai @ Chandravati Kol w/o
deceased had examined herself. The respondent examined one Shri Rajendra
Prasad Tripathi, Retd. ASI/RPF Saugor. Learned Claims Tribunal rejected
the claim application which is bad-in-law for the reasons stated therein. It is
further submitted that DRM report admitted the facts of the police whereby it
was held that deceased was died due to the injuries sustained during fell
down from the train. Railway Department did not conduct the enquiry
immediately after the incident but the same was conducted after filing claim
application, therefore, seeking set aside the impugned award dated
29/04/2019 prays for compensation.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Railway
supported the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal. Bhopal
Bench, Bhopal.
6. Considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
7. On perusal of the record, it is seen that as per the application,
applicant No.1 Rukani Bai @ Chandravati Kol along with her husband
Tingu Kol, son and daughter were travelling having valid journey ticket
bearing No.C-07573575. It is submitted that they came from Mandi Bamora
to Katni by some train and on Bina railway station they changed the train.
They were going from Bina to Katni. The train was heavily loaded with
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18455
3 MA-474-2022
passengers, therefore they were standing near the gate. Suddenly, there was a
jerk and on account of the same, the deceased fell down from the train and
sustained fatal injuries. The train stopped after ACP and the inured was
taking to the Govt. Hospital Saugor where he died on 10/10/2015.
8. Exhibit A/1 is the photocopy of the ticket, Ex.A/2 & Ex.A/3 are
the MLC report, Ex.A/4 is the Dehati Nalishi , Ex.A/5 is the information of
death, Ex.A/6 is spot map, Ex.A/7 is the application for postmortem in which
cause of death of deceased Tingu Kol is shock due to internal hemorrhage.
9. In reply, presenting officer has stated that journey ticket presented
is only for one person and travelling standing/sitting near the gate is an
offence punishable under the Railways Act. In R/1 dated 24/08/2016 which
has been reported by the Office of District Railway Magistrate that on
10/10/2015 there was no report regarding any untoward railway incident but
District Officer Saugor informed the Civil Police Baheliya that at about
09:41 AM injured person was brought for treatment along with his injured
wife Rukani Kol and about 2:40 PM Tingu Kol expired. Post mortem was
done. Claimant Rukani Kol filed an affidavit and appeared before the
Tribunal. In cross-examination, she has stated that her husband boarded the
train from Mandi at about 12 O'clock on 09/10/2015 and she further admitted
that she was also travelling with her husband on the date of incident. Ticket
was lost in the incident but ticket was recovered by the police.
10. Regarding travelling of claimant Rukani Bai @ Chandravati Kol,
it is suggested that she was travelling with her husband which she accepted,
therefore it is proved that she was travelling with her husband. She has stated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18455
4 MA-474-2022
that some ticket was lost and police was seized one ticket, therefore dismissal
of claim on the ground of non-recovery of ticket would not be justified.
11. Railway has examined one Rajendra Prasad Tripathi, Retd.
ASI/RPF Saugor who has stated that he has conducted the enquiry. There
was no recovery of ticket from body of the deceased. He has seized property
as per Ex.R/2. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that seizure
panchnama was not made before him. Seizure panchnama is R/2 dated
10/11/2015 from Rukani whereas the incident is of 10/10/2015 and in the
cross-examination, Rukani Bai ha stated that ticket was lost and after one
month ticket was seized from Rukani Bai itself.
12. Similar controversy has been settled by the co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Misc. Appeal No.1202 of 2017 (Sudhir Batham & others vs
Union of India through its General Manager) dated 30/01/2023 wherein in
Paras 6 & 7, the Court has held thus :-
"6. So far as the question of valid ticket is concerned,
the Appellants have relied upon one ticket. Merely
because the deceased was travelling with his family
members, would not mean, that the claimants should
have filed the tickets of all the family members who
were travelling in the train. Further more, Ticket
checkers also travel in the train for the purpose of
checking tickets. It is not the case of the respondent that
the ticket checker had found the deceased travelling
without the valid ticket. No person can enter inside the
platform in absence of either travelling ticket or
platform ticket.
7. Thus, this Court is of considered opinion, that the
Claims Tribunal committed a material illegality by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18455
5 MA-474-2022
rejecting the claim petition."
13. Therefore, taking a cue from the judgment of co-ordinate Bench
and if applied under the facts and circumstances of this case, in a case where
the ticket could not be produced, it cannot be held that ticket is forged
because after the death, the whole family went into disarray and, therefore
mere recovery of only one ticket will not lead to the conclusion that case is
false.
14. Regarding performance of journey by standing/sitting near the
coach gate in the Indians trains, it is taken note of that people do travel by
standing on the gate due to their urgency and helplessness on account of their
poverty and lack of education/knowledge. The question whether claimants
were bonafide passenger or not, was not properly appreciated by the learned
Claims Tribunal, therefore, grounds of rejection of claim application cannot
be upheld.
15. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the
appeal filed by the claimants/appellants is allowed. The award dated
29/04/2019 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench in case no.
OA/IIu/BPL/2016/46 is hereby set aside. The claimants are entitled for
compensation of Rs. 4 Lacs as provided in schedule appended with the
Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990.
The claimants shall also be entitled for 6% interest from the date of filing
application for compensation till its final payment.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18455
6 MA-474-2022
mc
