Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sangita Bai Prajapati vs Union Of India on 23 April, 2024
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 23 rd OF APRIL, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 4483 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. SANGITA BAI PRAJAPATI W/O LATE SHRI
JAGDISH KUMAR PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 45
YEARS, H.NO. 10 PURANI CHAWANI OPP. SHIV
MANDIR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAJKUMAR PRAJAPATI S/O LATE SHRI JAGDISH
KUMAR PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/O
H.NO.10, PURANI CHAWANI OPP. SHIV MANDIR,
GUNA DISTT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. KU. RASHMI PRAJAPATI D/O LATE SHRI JAGDISH
KUMAR PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, R/O
H.NO.10, PURANI CHAWANI OPP. SHIV MANDIR,
GUNA DISTT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. KU. NANDINI PRAJAPATI D/O LATE SHRI
JAGDISH KUMAR PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 16
YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR THR. APPL. NO.1,
NATURAL GUARDINA THEIR MOTHER SMT.
SANGEETA BAI R/O H.NO.10, PURANI CHAWANI
OPP. SHIV MANDIR, GUNA DISTT GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. ABHISHEK PRAJAPATI S/O LATE SHRI JAGDISH
KUMAR PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MINOR THR. APPL. NO.1, NATURAL
GUARDINA THEIR MOTHER SMT. SANGEETA BAI
R/O H.NO.10, PURANI CHAWANI OPP. SHIV
MANDIR, GUNA DISTT GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. SMT. BADAMI BAI PRAJAPATI W/O LATE SHRI
JAGDISH KUMAR PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 60
YEARS, R/O H.NO.10, PURANI CHAWANI OPP. SHIV
MANDIR, GUNA DISTT GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 4/29/2024
7:23:16 PM
2
(BY SHAFIQULLAH - ADVOCATE)
AND
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER C/O
SENIOR DIVISIONAL FIANANCE MANAGER
D.R.M.OFFICE, BUILDING WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY
HABIBGANJ (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANJAY SARWATE - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally at motion stage.
2. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against judgement dated 10.05.2019 passed in Case No.OA-IIU/BPL/2015/2023 by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench whereby appellant's claim petition has been dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants after referring to DRM report (Ex.R/1) as well as Ex.A/1, A/2 and A/3 & others documentary evidence as well as oral evidence on record, submits that from evidence on record, it is clearly established that deceased expired on account of injuries sustained from fall from the train. In this connection, he has relied upon Sanyokta Devi Vs. Union of India (passed in Civil Appeal No.770/2023 dated 02.02.2023). Therefore, on above grounds, it is urged that death of deceased come with in the purview of untoward incident.
4. So far as deceased being a bonafide passenger is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants, after relying upon Hariram Vs. Union of India, 2015 (1) MPHT 111 and Smt.Shanti Vs. Union of India, ILR(2013) MP Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI MEHRA Signing time: 4/29/2024 7:23:16 PM 3 162, submits that at the time of accident, no family member/friend etc. were travelling along with deceased. Therefore, it is not possible for appellants to prove the factum of purchase of ticket etc. Hence, in view of above, it is respondent/Railway, who is required to prove that at the time of accident, deceased was not having any valid ticket and he was not a bonafide passenger. But Railway has not adduced any evidence to prove that deceased was travelling without ticket at the time of accident.Therefore, it cannot be said that deceased was not a bonafide passenger. On above ground, it is urged that judgment passed by the Tribunal be set aside and appropriate compensation be awarded to the appellants.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents/Railway, after referring relevant paras of impugned judgment as well as Ex.R/35, submits that from above, it is evident that deceased was run over by the train and did not succumb to injury after fall from running train. Therefore, it cannot be said that deceased died in untoward incident. Further, referring to Naksha Panchayatnama (Ex.A/3) as well as relevant paras of impugned judgment, submits that at the time of preparing of Naksha Panchayat Nama, a purse was found in the back pocket of deceased's pant wherein Aadhar Card, a page of copy, 5 notes of Rs.5/- denomination, two coins of Rs.5/-, two coins of Rs.2/- and two coins of Rs.1/- total Rs.16/- and one photo were found but no ticket has been found therein. On above grounds, it is urged that deceased was having a ticket and certainly then nothing has been found along with above article found in the purse of deceased. Thus, from above, also it is established that at the time of accident, deceased was not having any valid ticket. After referring to Rina Devi as quoted by tribunal in impugned judgment, it is urged that initial burden has to be discharged by claimant and only thereafter Railway are required to lead any evidence in Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI MEHRA Signing time: 4/29/2024 7:23:16 PM 4 rebuttal. In the instant case appellants have failed to discharge initial burden. Appellants have not examined Pradeep Prajapati. Hence, it cannot be said that deceased was a bonafide passenger. On above grounds, it is urged that judgment passed by Tribunal require no interference. Hence, appellant's appeal be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
7. So far as death of deceased in untoward incident is concerned, perusal of Ex.A/1, A/2 and A/3, A/5 and DRM report (Ex.R/1 to R/35) clearly reveals that body of deceased was found nearby/by the side of railway line. Further, from injuries as mentioned in postmortem report, it cannot be said that deceased was run over by train or was cut into pieces from running train. Thus, from above evidence, it is clearly established that deceased expired on account of injuries sustained from fall from the running train. Thus, death of deceased clearly comes within the purview of untoward incident as defined in proviso of Section 124-A of Railway Act, 1989.
8. Now sole question arises before this Court is whether deceased was proved to be a bonafide passenger.
9. It is correct that no train ticket has been found at the scene of accident/along with the body of deceased. It is evident from Ex.A/3 (Naksha Panchayatnama) that a purse was found in the back side pocket of deceased's pant and therein other articles were found but no train ticket was found. On above ground, learned counsel for the respondents submit that deceased was not having a valid train ticket and if he was having any train ticket then it should have been found along with above articles in the purse of deceased.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI MEHRA Signing time: 4/29/2024 7:23:16 PM 510. In this Court's considered opinion, there is no such presumption that a person will keep train ticket always in his purse and he will not keep it, in his other pockets i.e. shirt etc. Therefore, just on the basis that in purse, no train ticket was found, it cannot be presumed that deceased was travelling without ticket.
11. With respect to above aspect of the matter, paras 7,11,13,15 of Smt.Shanti Vs. Union of India, reported in ILR (2013) MP 162, are relvent and they are as follows:
"7.After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the moot questions for consideration arises in this case are; whether the burden to prove that deceased was a bona fide passenger lies with the claimants or with the railway administration? Whether the principle of the strict liability is applicable to the statutory authority like railway administration? Whether in the facts of the case the incident which has taken place, would fall within the purview of an untoward incident as specified in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act ?
11.In the said context it is to be examined that the case of deceased passenger carrying in train and died due to accident and fall in any of the exception; or with the ticket to establish that he was a bona fide passenger, the burden lies on whom. As per Section 101 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof places on a person whoever desires in any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, whether the said principle may be made applicable in the case of a railway accident, where passenger has died and the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI MEHRA Signing time: 4/29/2024 7:23:16 PM 6 claimants have come to know about his death from the horses mouth and on receiving intimation, after enquiry should have reached on spot and found the dead body. In such a case it cannot be presumed from the claimants to search the ticket from the clothes of the deceased, and its belongings in place of going to fulfil the legal formalities to find out the dead body. It may be observed that the family members or the dependents would first identify the body and shall go for ritual or cremation of dead body without searching the ticket except making such averments. In such circumstances, it can safely be observed that it would be extremely difficult or impossible to the family members to prove that the deceased was possessing a valid ticket because it is beyond to their reach and control. It can safely be understood that the claimants may not be in a position to prove that the deceased had purchased a valid ticket and was a bona fide passenger. Since the railway administration appoints a ticket collector and also having a vigilance team to search the ticketless passenger and can take recourse of the penal provisions as specified under Sections 137, 138, 139 and 179 of the Railways Act. In such circumstances since the railway administration having a mechanism to find out the passengers travelling without valid ticket or pass adopting the recourse as permissible. In such circumstances, presumption can be drawn in favour of the citizen of abiding the law while having journey through train with valid ticket being bona fide passenger. At this juncture the principle of common law can be noted that "every man is innocent till proved guilty". In the said sequel of facts it can safely be Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI MEHRA Signing time: 4/29/2024 7:23:16 PM 7 presumed that the ticket collector would have examined whether the deceased possess a valid ticket or not, however, the railway administration can easily prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as the proof lies with them. At this stage, looking to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the deceased was going from Betul to Amla which is a journey by passenger train of approximately 45 minutes. During such period, if a person has travelled without ticket the ticket collector checking the train must have checked the ticket of the deceased and if he was found without ticket must have collected the fare as specified under Section 138 or penalized as per Section 137 of the Railways Act. In such circumstances, the burden of proof shifts on the railway administration to lead evidence for proving that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The said material may be available with the railway administration which is not produced in this case. In the said context, it can safely be held that the burden of proof shifts on the railway administration in the railway accident claim cases.
13. Now to consider the issue of strict liability, this Court can profitably refer the provisions of Article 38 of the Constitution of India thereby it is the responsibility of the State to look after the welfare of its citizens in various social welfare statutes to which the principle of strict liability has been provided to give insurance to the people against death, injuries irrespective of fault. The judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395, it is observed that strict Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI MEHRA Signing time: 4/29/2024 7:23:16 PM 8 liability is not subject to any of the exceptions to the rule in Rylands case, (1868) LR 3 HL
330. In the said context, if the provisions of Section 124A of the Railways Act, quoted herein above, if looked into, then thereby it is clear that for untoward incident the State Government has taken liability to pay compensation to the members of the deceased family without having any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration. In this context, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, can safely be relied upon. In such circumstances, it can, safely be held that in a case of accident or for untoward act, the principle of strict liability having its application, in case of statutory body like railway administration.
15. In view of forgoing discussion, it is to be held that burden to prove that the deceased was not having valid ticket or pass and was not a bona fide passenger lies on the railway administration in a case of railways accident as well as also of untoward incident the Claims Tribunal committed an error to shift the such burden on the claimants, therefore, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal on issue No. 1 and 2 is hereby set aside. As per the finding recorded on issue No. 3 and 4, it is held by the Tribunal that as per the prevalent rules at the time of deciding the claim petition, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- under the law."
11. Further, in Hariram Vs. Union of India, 2015(1) MPHT 111 Court has held as under:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI MEHRA Signing time: 4/29/2024 7:23:16 PM 9"13. The question, however, remains to be answered is as to whether Nirbhay Singh while travelling was a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket. Though no direct evidence has been led by the appellants/claimants nor the ticket has been recovered from the dead body, the fact remains that the deceased was travelling in a train when he fell down between Agasaud and Karonda stations which resulted in his death.
14. 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 not justified in holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.
15. In this context reference can be had of a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Satish Patidar, 2003 (4) MPLJ 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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI MEHRA Signing time: 4/29/2024 7:23:16 PM 10 affirm the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was a bona fide passenger."
12. In the instant case, respondent has not adduced any evidence to prove that at the time of accident, deceased was not having valid ticket and he was not a bonafide passenger. Therefore, in view of principle of law laid down in Smt.Shanti(supra) and Hariram(supra), it is not established that at the time of accident, deceased was travelling without valid train ticket and therefore, he was not a bonafide passenger.
13. Thus, in the instant case, it is clearly established that deceased expired in untoward incident and he was also a bonafide passenger. Therefore, appellants are entitled to receive compensation.
14. Hence, in view of above appeal filed by the appellants is allowed and impugned judgement passed by Tribunal is set aside and it is held that appellants are entitled to receive Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation because present case relates to accident dated 19.01.2015 and judgment was passed on 10.05.2019.
15. Appeal filed by the appellants is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE sm Signature Not Verified Signed by: SARSWATI MEHRA Signing time: 4/29/2024 7:23:16 PM