Jharkhand High Court
Ruveda Khatoon vs Union Of India on 27 July, 2022
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No.81 of 2018
----
Ruveda Khatoon, mother of the deceased Khurshid Khan, R/o Village/Mohalla Dhadhu, PO Bhaisadon, PS Balumath, District Latehar (Jharkhand).
... Appellant
-versus-
Union of India, through the General Manager, East Central Railway, P.O./P.S. Hajipur, District Hajipur (Bihar).
... Respondent
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
For the Appellants : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Pallav, A.S.G.I. Mr. Bajrang Kumar, A.C. to A.S.G.I.
----
6/ 27.07.2022 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Railways.
2. By filing this appeal, claimant-appellant has challenged the order dated 01.07.2016 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. OA(IIU)/RNC/2013/0066, by which claim application filed by the appellant herein has been dismissed.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that solely on the ground that the ticket in relation to the journey was not recovered from the body of the deceased, it was held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. Tribunal concluded that since the ticket, which was found was from Varanasi to Surat and not from Varanasi to Tori. Presumption that the deceased was not travelling on the train was not correct. Further, the DRM's report was heavily relied upon, wherein it was stated that the deceased was run over while crossing the railway track, but, there is no eye witness to the said occurrence, thus, the finding of the Tribunal that it is a case of death due to tress-pass is bad and the claimants are entitled to be compensated.
4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Railways submits that it is the case of the claimant that the deceased was returning from Surat to Tori via Varanasi on 31.12.2012, but, surprisingly the journey ticket, which was found from the body of the deceased is dated 04.12.2012, i.e., Ex-Varanasi to Surat, thus, the Tribunal has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the deceased was not a passenger of the train. He further submits that the DRM's report clearly suggests that the deceased was trying to cross the railway track while he was run over by Train No.18611 and he did not fall from Train No.8613. It is his case that since the applicant has failed to prove that the incident was untoward -: 2 :- incident and the deceased was bonafide passenger, Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim application.
5. After hearing the parties, since the Lower Court Records are already before me, I am disposing of this appeal at this stage itself.
6. It is the case of the claimant that the deceased was travelling from Varanasi to Tori on 31.12.2012, but, he fell down from the train and got crushed at Tori Railway Station. Claiming compensation, the mother of the deceased filed claim application, but on the grounds mentioned hereinabove, the claim application was dismissed. It is a case that a Railway Ticket was salvaged from the pocket of the deceased, which suggested that the ticket is dated 04.12.2012 Ex-Varanasi to Surat.
7. Section 124(A) of the Railways Act, 1989 provides for payment of compensation on account of untoward incident. Untoward incident has been defined in Section 123(C) of the Railways Act, 1989. Sub Section (2) of Section 123(C) of the Railways Act provides that an accidental fall of a passenger from a train carrying passenger will be treated to be an untoward incident. Further, as per the proviso to Section 124(A) of the Railways Act, on the conditions mentioned therein, i.e., sub proviso (a) to (e) claimants are not entitled to be compensated if the case falls within the ambit of the said conditions. The term 'passenger' has been defined in the explanation of the aforesaid Section, which includes a railway servant on duty and a person, who has purchased valid ticket for journey for a train or a person, who has purchased platform ticket, becomes victim of untoward incident.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India versus Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 has held that it is not necessary that a journey ticket has to be produced. Primary onus is upon the claimant and even an affidavit to the effect that deceased was a passenger and boarded a train after purchasing a valid ticket is sufficient to meet the requirement.
9. In the instant case, I find that it is the case of the claimant that on 3rd December, 2012, the deceased left Tori to travel to Surat via Varanasi. Mother of the deceased, who is the claimant, has stated that after reaching Surat, he informed her that he is returning to Tori due to his ill health. Railway Train Ticket which was found from the pocket of the dead body was from Varanasi to Surat. Be it noted that he had gone to Surat via Varanasi. This fact suggests that in fact deceased had gone to Surat. Statement of the mother of the deceased, who is the claimant, suggests that the deceased intended to -: 3 :- return to Tori due to his ill health and boarded the train at Varanasi after reaching from Surat. Indeed Railway Train Ticket from Varanasi to Tori was not found, but the statement on affidavit of the claimant is there, which suggests that, after purchasing a valid ticket, the deceased was returning to Tori. This evidence is already on record and is at page 45 of the Lower Court Records. In the aforesaid affidavit, in paragraph 3, she has made the following statement: -
3) That he boarded train No.18312 from Varanasi Jn. Station on 31/12/2012 at about (03.00) PM. For coming Tori Station. He had purchased Ticket (Exp.) Ex-Varanasi to Tori for his journey.
When the said train, left Varanasi Station, he had informed me the above facts by Mobile.
10. In the case of Union of India versus Rina Devi (supra) at paragraph 29, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: -
29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. 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. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly.
11. Thus, in terms of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that the claimant has discharged her primary onus and no contra evidence has been brought by the respondents.
12. It is the case of the respondents that the deceased got run over while crossing the railway track. Now, the question is whether the plea taken by the Railways to the effect that the deceased was run over by a train while crossing the track can be accepted? Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the said occurrence, i.e., to show that the deceased was crossing the railway track. Even if it is accepted that while crossing the railway track, another train has run over the deceased, then a fact, which cannot be ignored is that the loco-motive driver must have informed the aforesaid fact to the guard and an accident memo should have been prepared, whereas there is no such -: 4 :- document on record nor any loco motive driver came forward and stated that the deceased was run over by a train while crossing the track. This creates a doubt as to whether the defence taken by the Railways is genuine or not. Further from the fardbeyan of U.D. Case No.1 of 2013 (Page 21 of the Lower Court Records), it is clear that the dead body was found near the railway platform No.2 of Tori Railway Station. Author of this U.D.Case is one S.S. Singh, Inspector of Railway Protection Force of Tori Railway Station.
13. The aforesaid fact leads to a conclusion that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and the incident was an untoward incident. Though, admittedly, no one has seen deceased falling from train nor any one has seen deceased so run over while crossing the railway track, yet by weighing the evidence and explanations of both the parties, the evidence led by the claimant is believable than that of the Railways. Being beneficial legislation, Court is thus accepting the case as put forth by the claimant. Respondents are directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh) along with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till the amount is paid, which would be governed by the principles laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India versus Radha Yadav reported in (2019) 3 SCC 410 (Paragraph 11). Thus, this appeal is allowed.
(Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02