Rajasthan High Court
Union Of India Through The General ... vs Smt. Bimla W/O Late Shri ... on 3 March, 2022
Bench: Prakash Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 276/2022
Union Of India Through The General Manager North Western
Railway, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
(Signatory Authority, The Dy. Chief Commercial Manager
(Claims) North Western Railway Jaipur (Rajasthan.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Bimla W/o Late Shri Manoharlal, Aged About 55
Years,
2. Mohanlal S/o Shri Manoharlal, Aged About 29 Years,
3. Dharampal S/o Shri Manoharlal, Aged About 26 Years,
All Residents Of Railway Colony, Rajgarh, Tehsil Rajgarh,
District Churu (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mrs. Archana Mantri, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Judgment
03/03/2022
This Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant-
Railways against the judgment dated 1.11.2021 passed by Railway
Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (for short, 'the Tribunal') in OA-II-
130/2016, whereby the claim application filed by the respondents-
claimants (for short, 'the claimants') has been allowed and a sum
of Rs. 8,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of
judgment till actual payment has been awarded in their favour.
Facts of the case are that the claimants filed a claim
petition against the Railways, wherein it was averred that on
(2 of 4) [CMA-276/2022]
22.4.2016 Shri Manoharlal was to perform his journey ex.
Sadulpur to Churu by Train No. 04781 i.e. Hissar - Salasar Mela
Special. For that purpose, his son Mohanlal came to see him off at
Sadulpur railway station and ticket was also purchased by him for
his father Shri Manoharlal. There was heavy rush of passengers in
the train on that day. During journey, when the said train was
about to reach Churu Railway Station, Shri Manoharlal came near
the door of the coach with an intention to get down at his
destination. In the meantime, Shri Manoharlal due to a sudden
jerk of the train and resultant push from the fellow coach
passengers, accidentally fell down from the running train at Churu
railway station and suffered multiple grievous injuries, which
ultimately proved fatal and he died during treatment at D.B.
Hospital, Churu. It was further stated by the claimants that Shri
Manoharlal was a bonafide passenger and the alleged railway
journey ticket, which Shri Manoharlal was in possession at the
material time was lost during the course of incident.
The Tribunal vide its judgment dated 1.11.2021 allowed
the claim application filed by the claimants and awarded a sum of
Rs. 8,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of
judgment till actual payment. Hence, this civil misc. appeal has
been filed.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Railways submits that
the deceased Shri Manoharlal was not a bonafide passenger of the
train at the relevant time in view of Section 2(29) readwith
Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 as no ticket was recovered
from his possession. The burden lies on the claimants to prove
that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and not on the
Railways.
(3 of 4) [CMA-276/2022]
Heard. Considered.
In the case of Union of India Versus Rina Devi,
2018 SCC OnLine SC 507, it has been held by their Lordships of
the Hon'ble Apex Court:
"17.4 However, mere absence of ticket with such
injured or deceased will not negative the claim
that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden
will be on the claimant which can be discharged
by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and
burden will then shift on the Railways and the
issue can be decided on the facts shown or the
attending circumstances."
In the case of Union of India Versus Hari
Narayan Gupta and Anr. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.
839/1997); decided on 15.11.2006, it has been held by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court that:
"11. The burden of proving a person guilty lies
on the State or on instrumentality of the State.
Since the Railway Administration is an
instrumentality of the State, obviously the
burden of proving that the passenger was
travelling ticketless and, hence, was not a
bonafide passenger lies on the Railway
Administration."
From the material on record, it transpires that after
falling down from the train, Shri Manoharlal was immediately
shifted to Hospital for treatment by the Police. Meaning thereby,
no extensive search was made on the person of the injured (now
the deceased) or at the site of incident. Further, the injured (now
the deceased), was handled at various stages by different
(4 of 4) [CMA-276/2022]
agencies and under such circumstances, the possibility of losing a
ticket, which is a small piece of paper, cannot be ruled out,
particularly in the absence of any concrete evidence in rebuttal
from the side of the appellant-Railways. The appellant-Railways
has failed to discharge the burden of proof which was casted upon
them to prove that the deceased was a ticketless traveller at the
material time.
In this view of the matter, the learned Tribunal has
rightly held that deceased Shri Manoharlal was a bonafide
passenger of the train in question within the meaning of Section
2(29) readwith Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 and rightly
awarded a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a.
For the aforesaid reasons, I find no force in this appeal
and the same being bereft of any merit, is liable to be dismissed,
which stands dismissed accordingly.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J
DK/6
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
