Madhya Pradesh High Court
Union Of India vs Shivraj Singh Thakur on 7 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
ON THE 7th OF December, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 1877 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
UNION OF INDIA THR. GENERAL
MANAGER WEST CENTRAL
RAILWAY JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI VIKRAM SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SHIVRAJ SINGH THAKUR S/O
LATE BHAGWAN SINGH
THAKUR GRAM POST
BANSAKALA THANA TEH.
PATHRIYA DISTT. DAMOH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. PUSHPARANI W/O
SHIVRAJ SINGH THAKUR R/O
GRAM POST BANSAKALA,
THANA TEHSIL PATHRIYA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI M.SHAFIQUALLAH)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
2
Reserved on : 21.11.2023
Pronounced on : 07.12.2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment , coming
on for pronouncement this day, the Court passed the following:-
ORDER
This appeal is preferred Under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1987 Act") by the appellant/Railway Administration aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.04.2017 in O.A/No.IIu/BPL/2012/0023 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as "the RCT").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrived before the RCT.
3. The brief facts, as culled out from the record are that the claim petition filed by the applicants/claimants seeking compensation for death of their son i.e. Chandra Pratap Singh Thakur while traveling in Godwana Express Bina to Pathariya, on the intervening night of 26th/27th February, 2009, during the course of journey owing to heavy rush of passengers he could not get a place to sit, he was forced to travel by standing at the door of the compartment. Owing to heavy jolting of the train, he accidentally fallen from the running train between Naryawali to Ishrawara, as a result, he sustained severe injuries and spontaneously died on the spot. That, the impugned journey of the deceased was holding a valid second class superfast journey ticket which was lost in the alleged incident. The Station Master Naryawali informed the alleged incident to Police Station- Naryawali and the case was registered vide merg no.7/2009 and it was 3 found that cause of death of the deceased "due to fallen from the running train".
4. The claimants no.1 to 2, who are the parents of the deceased Chandra Pratap Singh Thakur, filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- each (Four Lakhs Rupees) before the RCT on account of the death of the deceased in an untoward incident occurred on the intervening night of 26th/27th February, 2009, while travelling from Naryawali to Isharwara in a Godwana Express and fell down from the running train and sustained serious injuries and died on the spot.
5. The respondent- Railway Administration filed written statement as well as the DRM report disputed the claim of the applicants for compensation and denied that the death of the deceased has occurred in an alleged untoward incident as defined u/s 123(c)(2) r/w section 124(A) of the Railways Act, 1989. Further contended that the applicants/claimants strict to proof that the deceased was travelling as a bonafide passenger on the date of the incident and further denied that the deceased was sitting near the gate and due to heavy crowd in the compartment and jolting of the train the deceased fell down from the moving train near Naryawali to Isherwara and prays to dismiss the petition.
6. In view of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues :
1. Whether the death of the deceased was due to accident 4 fall as under u/s 123(c)(2) of Railway Act ?
2. Whether the deceased was travelling as a bonafide passenger of the train at the time of occurrence of the untoward incident?
3. Whether the respondent-
Railway Administration is protected under u/s 124(A) of Railways Act and is not liable to pay compensation to the appellants ?
4. Whether the applicants are the sole dependent of the deceased to receive the compensation as claimed ?
5. Relief and cost ?
7. In order to establish the claim of the applicants at the time of inquiry, the first applicant- Shivraj Singh Thakur filed an affidavit and Ex. A-1 to A-11 on behalf of the appellants. None were examined on behalf of respondent-Railway Administration and exhibit R-1 filed i.e. Divisional Railway Manager Report .
8. On appreciation of evidence and placing reliance on Ex. A-1 to A-11 and Ex.R-1, the learned Tribunal in the instant case came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train and accidently falling from running train and further held that the death of the deceased had occurred due to untoward incident as defined u/s 123(c)(2) r/w section 124 (A) of the Act, 1989 and awarded an amount of 5 Rs.8,00,000/- to the applicants/parents of the deceased Chandra Pratap Singh Thakur.
9. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment passed by the learned RCT, the Railway Administration/respondent has preferred the present appeal seeking to set aside the judgment dated 17.04.2017.
10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants/claimants and learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Railway Administration and perused the material available on record.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the Railway Administration/respondent contended that the findings recorded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law further would submit that the learned Tribunal have committed error in passing an award of Rs.8,00,000/- in favour of applicants instead of dismissing their claim, further submit that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and he was not possessed a valid ticket and further contended that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is perverse, therefore, he prays to set-aside the judgment of the RCT and allow the appeal.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the applicants/claimants submit that the presumption has to be drawn that the deceased was a bonafide passenger who lost his life in a railway accident. Further contended that the learned counsel for the Railway is too hyper-technical, no specific plea in that behalf has been raised in the claim petition, further contended that the occurrence was an outcome of an untoward incident as defined u/s 123(c)(2) of Railways Act and further contended that the 6 learned Claims Tribunal properly appreciated the evidence in awarding compensation and further contended that the judgment of the learned Tribunal is well-reasoned, just and reasonable and, therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
13. Now the points that arises for consideration in this appeal are :
"1. Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is not in accordance with principle of law ?
2. Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and reasonable or needs interference of this Court ?"
14. On perusal of impugned award would show that the Tribunal has framed relevant issues as to whether the deceased was travelling as a bonafide passenger of the train at the time of occurrence, to which, the tribunal after considering the evidence coupled with the documents has categorically observed that while he was travelling in Godwana Express on the intervening night of 26th/27th February, 2009, during the course of journey the deceased had fallen from the running train or even otherwise there is every chance of misplacement of journey ticket since the incident occurred due to an untoward incident in terms of section 124(A) of the Railways Act the claimants are entitled for the benefit and awarded amount of Rs.8,00,000/-.
15. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the provision of Railways Act in particular chapter XIII is reproduced as under:-
78. Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, 1989 deals with the liability of Railway Administration for death and injury to passengers due to accidents. Section 123, the first section of the Chapter, has definition clauses. Clause (c) defines "untoward incident"
which insofar as relevant for the present case is as under:
"123. (c) 'untoward incident' means--
(1)(i)-(iii) (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers."
9. Section 124-A of the Act provides as follows:
"124-A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents.--When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the Railway Administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident:
Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the Railway Administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to--
(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;8
(b) self-inflicted injury;
(c) his own criminal act;
(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;
(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, 'passenger' includes--
i. a railway servant on duty; and ii. (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident."
16. As per clause (2), the accidental falling of any passenger from running train carrying passenger would be an untoward incident as per section 124(A) of the Railway Act, and the Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation on account of untoward incident. Therefore, the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal in awarding compensation to the parents of the deceased is just and proper.
17. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572, para 29 concludes as thus:
"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 9 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".
18. In view of the said legal position and on the basis of the pleadings and the material placed on record before the learned Claims Tribunal, it is required to be analysed whether the findings of the learned Claims Tribunal are just and reasonable.
19. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hariram Vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 1 MPHT 111 has held as under:-
"15. In this context reference can be had of a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Union of India vs. Satish Patidar 2003 (4) M.P.L.J. 306; wherein it is held :
"27. This brings us to point No. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, as the claimants could not establish that he purchased the ticket. The burden to prove that the deceased had a valid ticket during his journey which he proceeded cannot be placed on dependents. Obviously, such burden of proof is impossible to be discharged by the dependents who can have no means of knowledge whether the deceased before boarding the train had purchased the valid ticket. It is likely that such a deceased 10 passenger had a valid ticket but the same was lost in accident. To place the onus of proof dependents would amount to denial of the benefit of legislation to them for reasons beyond their control. In the case before us, the presumption has to be drawn that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Therefore, we affirm the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.
20. In view of the above decision and this Court is of the opinion that as per the law laid down in Rina Devi case (supra), it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased Chandra Pratap Singh Thakur died in an untoward incident which took place in the intervening night of 26th/27th February, 2007 while travelling in Godwana Express Bine to Pathariya and while the deceased was standing at the door of the compartment as he could not get a place to sit due to heavy crowed in the compartment and jolting of the train, the deceased unexpectedly fell down from running train between Naryawali to Ishrawara, as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. An information was given by the Station Master, Naryawali to the Railway Police who registered the FIR as merg no.9/2009 and the DRM report dated 25.11.2011 forwarded by Divisional Security Commissioner to Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial). After enquiry had come to the conclusion that the deceased had fallen down accidentally from the running train and died on the spot. The same was refuted by the respondent, they relied on the findings of the DRM report. The conclusion of the investigation is that the deceased Chandra Pratap Singh Thakur was found lying between the two lines with a deep injury on his head. According to the testimony given before the Investigator, the death 11 of the deceased is said to be due to falling from the running train. A post- mortem was conducted by Senior Medical Officer, Tili Hospital Sagar dated 27.02.2009 and the doctor opined regarding cause of death as under:
"The deceased would have an appearance to have died due to injury to the vital organs and decapitation of head (brain) within 24 hours prior to the autopsy."
21. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that as per law laid down in Rina Devi's case (supra) it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased Chandra Pratap Singh Thakur died in an untoward incident which took place in the intervening night of 26th/27th February, 2009 in the Godwana Express and deceased was a bonafide passenger and mere absence of ticket with such injured/deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bonafide passenger. The finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal is justified as per the provisions contained in section 124(A) of the Railways Act and Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules 1990 and awarded compensation to the applicants/parents of the deceased, and the judgment of learned Tribunal is well-reasoned and justified and not committed any illegality or irregularity and needs no interference by this Court.
22. The Railway has failed to examine any of its witnesses to establish the fact that the deceased was travelling without ticket and since the deceased had boarded the train, the presumption would be that he had valid authority to travel. The Tribunal, therefore, was justified in holding 12 that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and further the Railway Administration have not adduced any evidence to demonstrate that the case falls under the exception to the proviso of section 124(A) of the Railways Act. In the circumstances, the applicants/claimants would be entitled for compensation under Section 124(A) of the Railways Act.
23. In Apex Court judgment in the case of Raj Kumari and Another Vs. Union of India, 1993 ACJ 846, the relevant para-7 as follows :
The provisions of Sections 113 and 122 of the Act make travelling without ticket punishable under certain circumstances and liable for payment of fare and fine. The scheme and the Act seen as a whole makes it evident that the entry into a railway carriage required of a person to obtain a ticket, pass or permission and in absence thereof, his action or omission is punishable with imprisonment or fine, including removal from the carriage. In our opinion, when a person is found dead as a result of accident in a railway carriage, in which he was travelling, a presumption may be drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act keeping in view of the prohibition under Section 68 of the Act against boarding a train without ticket that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Since ticketless travel is an illegal act and exposes such traveller to penal action, the presumption is of innocence in favour of such one of the travellers or passengers in a train. It is for the railway administration to prove contrary and the burden in such 13 circumstances that the deceased was a ticketless traveller or was not a bona fide passenger, should be on the railway administration which has special means of knowledge as to whether any ticket was issued to that deceased or whether at any point, before or at the end of journey, he was checked and detected by staff of the railway as an unauthorised person without ticket, pass or permission. We have to keep in mind that the provision contained in Section 82-A of the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation to compensate monetarily at a fixed sum each victim involved in railway accident. The argument of the learned counsel for the Railways cannot be accepted that the burden is on the dependants of the deceased passenger to prove that the deceased, who died in railway accident, possessed a valid ticket or pass. To place such onus of proof on the dependants would amount to denial of the benefit of such legislation to them for reasons beyond their control because such onus is impossible to be discharged
24. The above said judgment is squarely applicable to the present situation. Compensation as applicable on the date of the accident has to be given reasonably even assuming that an act may be negligent or even rash. But it certainly is not a criminal act : the negligence of the passenger does not have effect on liability of railways and the claimants would be entitled for compensation.
1425. A judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Radha Yadav reported in (2019) 3 SCC 410, the relevant para- 11 is reproduced herein:
11. The issue raised in the matter does not really require any elaboration as in our view, the judgment of this Court in Rina Devi [Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572] is very clear. What this Court has laid down is that the amount of compensation payable on the date of accident with reasonable rate of interest shall first be calculated. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award, the claimant would be entitled to higher of these two amounts.
Therefore, if the liability had arisen before the amendment was brought in, the basic figure would be as per the Schedule as was in existence before the amendment and on such basic figure reasonable rate of interest would be calculated. If there be any difference between the amount so calculated and the amount prescribed in the Schedule as on the date of the award, the higher of two figures would be the measure of compensation. For instance, in case of a death in an accident which occurred before amendment, the basic figure would be Rs 4,00,000. If, after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs 8,00,000, which was brought in by way of amendment, the claimant would be entitled to Rs 8,00,000. If, however, the amount of original compensation with rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs 8,00,000 the compensation would be in terms of figure in excess of Rs 8,00,000. The idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment, to the extent possible. Thus, according to us, the matter is crystal clear. The issue does not need any further clarification or elaboration.
1526. Accordingly as per the above discussion, mere absence of ticket with the deceased will not negative the claim that he was not a bonafide passenger. The Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and thereafter burden will then shift on the Railways. As per the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal those ingredients have been found proved, therefore, the present appeal filed by Railway Administration is devoid of merits, except to say, during the recovery, ticket was not found. In absence of any cogent evidence, notwithstanding anything in any other law, the Railway Administration shall liable to pay compensation as prescribed.
27. In the light of the above factual aspect, this Court is of the view that the deceased, being a bonafide passenger, died in an untoward incident and, therefore, the applicants/claimants entitled to compensation u/s 124(A) of the Railways Act and the award passed by the Tribunal is justified and needs no interference by this Court.
28. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment dated 17.04.2017 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal in Case No.O.A/No.IIu/BPL/2012/0023 is well reasoned and in view of finding that the presumption could be raised in favour of the deceased, being a bonafide passenger, the full amount of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs) as quantified by the learned Claims Tribunal cannot be denied to the dependents.
29. Accordingly and as per the above discussion, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 17.04.2017 passed by 16 Railway Claims Tribunal in Case No.O.A/No.IIu/BPL/2012/0023. I find no merit in this appeal. This appeal, is accordingly, dismissed.
i. The respondent/Railway shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order. No order as to costs.
ii. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending for consideration shall stands closed.
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J.
17IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH A T J A B A L PU R *** MISC. APPEAL No. 1877 of 2017 BETWEEN:-
UNION OF INDIA THR. GENERAL MANAGER WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....APPELLANT AND
1. SHIVRAJ SINGH THAKUR S/O LATE BHAGWAN SINGH THAKUR GRAM POST BANSAKALA THANA TEH.
PATHRIYA DISTT. DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. PUSHPARANI W/O SHIVRAJ SINGH THAKUR R/O GRAM POST BANSAKALA, THANA TEHSIL PATHRIYA (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate.
Counsel for the respondents : Mr.M.Shafiquallah, Advocate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 07.12.2023.
18SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals ? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment ? Yes/No DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J.Digitally signed by RAVIKANT KEWAT Date: 2023.12.08 10:45:20 +05'30'