Rajasthan High Court
Smt. Rumali Devi W/O Late Shri ... vs Union Of India on 17 January, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4134/2019
1. Smt. Rumali Devi W/o Late Shri Harimohan, Aged About
31 Years, R/o Village Patti Mohalla, Kiratpura, Tehsil
Malarana Donngar, District Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan).
2. Master Sameer S/o Late Shri Harimohan, Aged About 10
Years, (Minor Hence Through His Natural Guardian And
Mother Smt. Rumali Devi, Appellant No. 1) R/o Village
Patti Mohalla, Kiratpura, Tehsil Malarana Donngar, District
Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan).
3. Master Nishant S/o Late Shri Harimohan, Aged About 9
Years, (Minor Hence Through His Natural Guardian And
Mother Smt. Rumali Devi, Appellant No. 1) R/o Village
Patti Mohalla, Kiratpura, Tehsil Malarana Donngar, District
Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan).
4. Laxmichand S/o Shri Ramphool, Aged About 56 Years,
R/o Village Patti Mohalla, Kiratpura, Tehsil Malarana
Donngar, District Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan).
5. Smt. Uganti Devi W/o Shri Laxmichand, Aged About 51
Years, R/o Village Patti Mohalla, Kiratpura, Tehsil Malarana
Donngar, District Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan).
----Appellants/Claimants
Versus
Union Of India, Through The General Manager, West Central
Railway, Jabalpur (MP).
----Respondent/Non-Claimant
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajay Shukla through VC
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment
17/01/2022
By filing the present misc. appeal, a challenge has been
made to the impugned judgment and award dated 13.05.2019
(2 of 4) [CMA-4134/2019]
passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur [for
short 'the learned Tribunal'] in Original Application No. OA-II-
184/2016, by which the claim petition filed by the claimants-
appellants has been dismissed.
Facts of the case in nutshell are that the claimants-appellants
(hereinafter referred as 'the claimants') filed an application before
the learned Tribunal under Section 16 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act of 1987') read with Section
125 of the Railways Act, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.
6,00,000/- stating therein that on 26.04.2016, the deceased
Harimohan commenced his journey from Hindaun City to
Gangapur City in Dehradun Express with a valid second class
railway journey ticket. It was further stated in the claim petition
that the deceased while travelling fell down from the train at
Gangapur City railway station and came underneath the train and
cut. After the incident, FIR bearing No. 15/2016 was registered
under Section 174 Cr.P.C. It was further stated in the claim
petition that at relevant time of journey, the deceased was having
the valid ticket, but he lost the same during the course of incident.
The deceased was a bona fide passenger, hence, the claimants are
entitled to get compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- with interest.
The respondent- Union Of India submitted its reply denying
the averments made in the claim petition and it was stated in the
reply that the dead body of the deceased was found on Line No.3
in the yard and no ticket was found from the possession of the
deceased. It was also stated in the reply that the deceased was
not a bona fide passenger of the train and the alleged incident
indicates that the deceased had committed suicide. Hence, the
claimants are not entitled to get any compensation.
(3 of 4) [CMA-4134/2019]
On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the learned
Tribunal framed as many as four issues and all the four issues
were decided against the claimants by saying that the deceased
was neither the bona fide passenger, nor his death had occurred
due to an untoward incident as a result of an accidental fall from
the passenger carrying train.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award
dated 13.05.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal, the claimants
have preferred the instant appeal on the ground that the findings
recorded by the learned Tribunal are illegal and not sustainable in
the eye of law as the same suffer from the error apparent on the
face of the record.
Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the
onus of proof was on the Railway Administration to prove that the
passenger was not carrying a valid journey ticket. Counsel further
submits that the claimants have proved the fact from their oral
evidence that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he
died while falling from the train. Hence, they are entitled to get
compensation.
I have heard the counsel appearing for the claimants and
perused the material made available to the Court.
After carefully examining the entire material available on
record, it is clear that there is no material or evidence on the
record to arrive at a conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger of the train-in-question. Primarily, the onus is upon the
claimants to prove their claim. Here in this case, no such evidence
is available on the record, as the claimants have not produced any
evidence to show that the deceased had in fact purchased a ticket
for journey and he was proceeding in the train. The claimants
(4 of 4) [CMA-4134/2019]
have failed to prove the onus that the deceased was holding a
valid ticket when the alleged incident took place.
It is a settled position of law that the provisions of Railways
Act are applicable only when a passenger suffers injury or death in
an untoward incident and his family members are entitled to seek
compensation provided such person was a bona fide passenger
having a valid ticket. That means that either on his body or in his
possession such ticket should be found at the time of accident,
which is valid for journey in that particular train for that particular
date. If that is not found, then the reasonable presumption is that
he was either not travelling or he was travelling without ticket.
Thus, under these circumstances, such person cannot be treated
as a bona fide passenger.
To sum up the conclusion that emerges is that the claimants
have failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger in the train as alleged by them. Hence, they are not
entitled to get any relief under the provisions of the Act of 1987.
Accordingly, the present appeal fails and the same is hereby
dismissed.
All the pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Ritu/41
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
