Smtdakha Devi vs U O I And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 264 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 264 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 12 January, 2022

Rajasthan High Court

Smtdakha Devi vs U O I And Another on 12 January, 2022

Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1989/2010

Smt. Dakha Devi wife of Late Sh. Maddu Lal Ji, resident of Luv

Khush Colony, Khairda Power House, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                   Versus
1. Union of India through the General Manager, West Central

Railway, Jabalpur, MP

2. Aarti Devi wife of Late Sh. Suresh Kumar Merotha, resident of

B-24, Janta Colony, Jaipur.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Goyal, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

12/01/2022

A challenge in the instant misc. appeal has been made to the

impugned judgment and award dated 06.05.2010 passed by the

Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (for short 'the learned

Tribunal') in OA-II-72/2007 by which the claim petition filed by the

claimants has been dismissed.

The skeletal facts of this case are that the claimants

submitted a claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims

Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act of 1987') read with Section 125 of

the Railway Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989') seeking

compensdation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest for the death of

Suresh Kumar who died in an untoward incident. As per the claim

petition the deceased died due to an untoward incident which took

(2 of 5) [CMA-1989/2010]

place on 07.05.2007 while he was travelling with a valid second

class railway journey ticket No.A-26011187 in train No.2471 down

from Sawaimadhopur to Delhi.

The respondent-Union of India submitted its reply denying

the averments made in the claim petition and it was pleaded on

behalf of the respondent-Union of India that the deceased was not

a bona fide passenger of the train in question and he was not

holding a valid ticket at the time of alleged incident occurred.

Based on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were

framed:

"1-Whether on 07.05.2007 deceased Shri Suresh Kumar was travelling ex. Sawaimadhopur to Delhi by Train No.2471 Down on a valid railway journey ticket and was a bonafide passenger of the said train?

2-Whether the deceased accidentally fell down from the said train, sustained injuries and died as a result thereof as alleged in the claim application and the said incident is an untoward incident as stipulated under Section 123(c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989?

3- Whether the applcants are the sole dependants of the deceased and are entitled to compensation as claimed under Para-16 of the claim application?

4-Relief?"

After hearing arguments of both sides, the learned Tribunal

decided issue No.2 in favour of the claimants by observing that

due to heavy rush of passengers, the deceased could hardly get

space to stand near the door of the coach and when the train

started moving from Sawaimadhopur Railway Station, the

deceased died due to jerk and resultant from the fellow

passengers accidently fell down from running train in between the

face of the platform and the train.

After considering the evidence of both sides and documents

available on record, the Tribunal recorded its finding that the

(3 of 5) [CMA-1989/2010]

claimants have succeeded in establishing the fact that the death of

the deceased occurred due to an accidental fall from running train

and resultant injuries and the said incident is an untoward incident

as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railway Act, 1989.

While deciding the issue No.1, the learned Tribunal came to

the conclusion that the deceased was carrying ticket No.A-

26011187 but the same was valid for two adults while the

deceased was travelling alone. Hence, the learned Tribunal

recorded its finding that no clarification or evidence was produced

by the claimants that why a ticket for two adults was purchased

and why only one person was travelling in the train. Thus, on a

hyper technical ground, issue No.1 was decided against the

claimants and the claim petition filed by the claimants has been

rejected.

Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated

06.05.2010, this misc. appeal has been preferred.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that

the incident occurred on 07.05.2007 and immediately after the

incident, an inquiry report was prepared by the Railway Police

Force (RPF) on the same day and it was found that the deceased

was in possession of ticket No.A-26011187 of second class Super

Fast. Counsel further submitted that there was no reason to

disbelieve that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger of the

train in question as defined under Section 2(29) of the Railway

Act, 1989. Counsel lastly submitted that when the issue No.2 was

decided in favour of the claimants then the learned Tribunal

seriously fell in error in rejecting the claim petition filed by the

claimants.

                                            (4 of 5)                [CMA-1989/2010]



     Per     contra,   learned        counsel         appearing    on   behalf   of

respondent-Union of India opposed the arguments made by the

counsel appearing for the appellant and argued that no prudent

person would purchase ticket for two adults while travelling alone.

Thus, the learned Tribunal rightly rejected the claim petiton filed

by the claimants.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents available on record.

Without going into the merits of the case and more

particularly the fact that the issue No.2 has been decided in favour

of the claimants, this Court is of the view that looking to the

inquiry report prepared by the Railway Police Force (RPF) itself, it

is clear that deceased was in possession of a valid ticket and he