Delhi High Court
Smt. Babi Kunvar vs Union Of India on 2 April, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 218/2012
% 2nd April, 2014
SMT. BABI KUNVAR ......Appellant
Through: Mr. Shubhashis R. Soren, Mr. Tushar
Taneja, Advocates
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Joydeep Mazumdar, Mr. Debojyoti
Bhattacharya, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. I have in the recent past while dismissing the appeals which have been filed against the judgments passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissing claim petitions, simultaneously initiated proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C because I am finding that there is now a rash of cases wherein because of the high statutory compensation of Rs. 4 lakh which is payable on account of a death in an untoward incident, there is an organized racket in certain cases to get the huge statutory compensation of Rs. 4 lakh FAO 218/2012 Page 1 of 7 and which is awarded with pendente lite and future interest. The present appeal is one such false and dishonest litigation.
2. In the present case, the claim petition was filed claiming that the deceased Amar Singh, husband of the appellant/petitioner died in an untoward incident on 17.4.2010 near the Okhla Railway Station, New Delhi while traveling from Haridwar to Kota in Rajasthan and which journey was alleged to have begun on 16.4.2010. The case as set up by the appellant was that the deceased was accompanying his friends Amar Singh and Lala @ Bachcha who saw him fall from the train and his consequent death in an untoward incident as per the meaning of the expression in Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
3. The Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition by making the following salient observations :
"6.4.3 The statement of Amar Singh, the alleged eyewitness and co- passenger of the deceased is analysed as under :-
i) He has not been produced by the applicant before tribunal for examination.
ii) He has stated in his statement before the police that after Amar Singh (since deceased) fell down from the running train at Okhal railway station, he got down at the next station and came back and found his companion Amar Singh in dead condition. In the meantime, the police came on the spot.
However, the said statement of Amar Singh was not recorded at FAO 218/2012 Page 2 of 7 the spot on 17.4.2010 but on the next day i.e. 18.4.2010. Thus, there is a reasonable suspicion on the statement of Amar Singh.
iii) If he was present on the spot, the body would have been surely identified then and there itself and not on the next date i.e. 18.4.2010, as mentioned in the brief facts (AW1/8).
In view of the above, the evidence of Amar Singh is considered unreliable and unworthy of credence. 6.4.4 Brief facts (AW1/8) :- is not based on the evidence of independent witnesses on the spot, but is based on unreliable and unworthy evidence of Amar Singh and hearsay evidence of AW-1. Thus, AW1/8 is not considered having any evidence value.
6.4.5 In the post mortem report (AW1/9) the M.O. has opined that the cause of death is due to combined effect of intracranial damage and spinal injury due to blunt force impact. All injuries are ante mortem.
6.4.6 Final police report (AW1/10) : The conclusion drawn by the IO is that the death of the deceased was due to train accident.
In view of the above, there is no averment in any of the credible documents that the deceased fell down from the train. 6.5 The case of the respondent on the other hand, is that the deceased did not fell down by Firozpur-Mumbai Janata Express, as alleged in the claim application, but was hit (run over) by coupled light engine at Okhla railway station. In support of their contention, the respondent has adduced the evidence of Shri A.K. Shahai, Station Supdt. Okhla Railway Station (RW1) in this regard, who has deposed during his oral evidence that on 17.4.2010 he was on duty from 8.00 to 16.00 hours. Once couple light engine which was going from Tughlakabad to New Azadpur, passed through Okhla railway station at 15.03 hours. After five minutes of passing of this engine, Hd. Constable (RPF) told him that one person has been hit (run over) by this engine and he has died. The incident FAO 218/2012 Page 3 of 7 occurred between 15-26/26-28 on line No. 1, which fals under Okhla railway station yard. He also deposed that Line No. 1 is the good line, and on this line, only goods train and passenger trains leaving for Ghaziabad are received. No mail/express train is received on line No. 9024 Janata Express, which goes from Firozpur to Mumbai, came on line No. 6 at 14.02 hours and left at 14.12 hours. He further deposed that no incident took place by this train. Between line No. 1 and 6 there are two high level island platforms and distance between there two lines is about 50 meters.
The incident in question happened on line No. 1 is corroborated by the death report, filed by the applicant alongwith the claim application. The sketch plan of the place on page 2 of the death report, prepared by the police shows that body was found near line No. 1. The Firozpur-Mumbai Janata Express on the other hand, arrived on Line No. 6 which is about 50 meters away from line No. 1 and in between the two lines, there are two high level island platform.
The time of the incident i.e. at about 15.03 hours, when the coupled light engine passed through Okhla railway station, matches with the information received by A.K. Shahi, station Supdt. Okhla railway station at 15.08 hours and by the police at 15.10 hours.
Further the oral evidence of RW1 could not be controverted by the learned counsel for the applicant during cross-examination. There is also no reason to doubt or disbelieve the oral evidence of A.K. Shahi, Station Supdt., Okhla Railway Station." (emphasis added)
4. A reading of the aforesaid paras of the impugned judgment shows the following three important conclusions arrived at by the Railway Claims Tribunal for holding that the claim petition was bogus: FAO 218/2012 Page 4 of 7
(i) If the co-passenger Amar Singh was travelling with the deceased, and who came back to the spot, after alighting at the next station, and the police admittedly was found at the spot then, there was no reason why police would not have recorded the statement of Sh. Amar Singh on the same date ie on 17.4.2010 but only on next day ie 18.4.2010. I may note invariably in all the cases of death on railway property, the railway police or the local police on the same day when the body is found, itself records the statements and which more importantly surely would have been recorded of the alleged eye witnesses and which is Amar Singh in this case. Admittedly not only Sh.
Amar Singh's statement to the police has not been recorded on the date of the incident but recorded on the next day i.e on 18.4.2010 even the identification of the body is on the next day ie 18.4.2010. Firstly, Sh. Amar Singh never came into the witness box and this clearly shows that he was not ready to stand the test of cross-examination by which truth would have been elicited.
(ii) Even the ticket relied upon by the appellant was filed with the authorities not on the date of the incident but on the next date which clearly shows that a ticket was a procured ticket.
FAO 218/2012 Page 5 of 7
(iii) The most important aspect is that the deceased could not have been said to have fallen down from the Firozpur-Mumbai Janata Express inasmuch as that train passed on line no. 6 at Okhla Railway Station on the date of the incident i.e 17.4.2010, but, the body of the deceased was found at line no. 1 which is a goods yard line on which the Firozpur-Mumbai Janta Express did not pass on 17.4.2010. The Tribunal has discussed the necessary evidence being the statement of RW-1, Sh. A.K. Shahi, Supdt. Okhla Railway Station that it was reported to him that on line no. 1 a person was hit over by a coupled light engine.
5. I may note that in the present case the name of the second so called co-passenger, namely Lala @ Bachcha was not originally stated in the claim petition, and name of this person Sh. Lala @ Bachcha was brought in by virtue of an application for amendment to the claim petition. The application for amendment to the claim petition is dated 15.2.2011. I note that the impugned judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal does not even show that Sh. Lala @ Bachcha thereafter appeared as a witness in the case in support of the appellant.
6. In my opinion, the aforesaid conclusions of the Railway Claims Tribunal are unimpeachable and the claim petition is completely a dishonest FAO 218/2012 Page 6 of 7 and false one filed only to claim the substantial statutory compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
7. While dismissing the appeal, I direct Registrar General of this Court to conduct an enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C against the appellant and all persons who could be said to be abetting the appellant for filing of this wholly false claim before the Tribunal. Let the parties appear before the Registrar General on 24th April, 2014 and whereafter the Registrar General shall conduct the necessary enquiries for submitting his preliminary enquiry report under Section 340 Cr.P.C to this Court.
APRIL 02, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
godara
FAO 218/2012 Page 7 of 7