Delhi High Court
Sunita & Ors vs Union Of India on 22 February, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/001396
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 41/2018
Date of Decision: 22.02.2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
SUNITA & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.Sanchit Vashistha, Mr.Mudit
Chaudhary, Mr.Satyam Pandit and
Mr.Arjun Pundhir, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Kavindra Gill, Sr.Panel Counsel,
UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of present appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act'), the appellants/claimants have assailed judgment dated 06.12.2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi in Case No. OA/II(u) No.64/2017, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants came to be dismissed.
2. The facts, as available on record, are that the deceased i.e., Sh. Narender Kumar was a holder of Monthly Seasoned Ticket (in short, 'MST') Digitally Signed FAO 41/2018 Page 1 of 4 By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:27.02.2023 12:13:29 Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/001396 bearing No. L-06392884, which was valid for to and fro journey from Meerut City to Anand Vihar. The appellants had claimed that on 10.01.2017, while the deceased was travelling from Ghaziabad to Anand Vihar, due to sudden jerk and heavy rush of passengers in the compartment, he fell from the moving train at Sahibabad Railway Station resulting in grievous injuries and eventually his death.
3. Mr. Sanchit Vashistha, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that though the Tribunal had found the incident to have been an 'untoward incident', it erroneously came to a conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger at the relevant time.
4. Mr. Kavindra Gill, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has contested the appeal by submitting that the Tribunal had gone through the Train Signal Register (in short, 'TSR') and came to the right conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.
5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the material placed on record.
6. Indisputably, on 10.01.2017 at 07:10 am, an information came to be recorded that some passengers present on the Sahibabad Railway Station reported seeing a person lying in a dead state. The MST recovered from the body of the deceased was verified and found to be validly issued. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the said MST was valid on the date of the incident. The MST authorized the deceased to travel to and fro from Meerut City to Anand Vihar and Sahibabad Railway Station falls between the above two railway stations. The Tribunal, while rejecting the claim petition, observed that as per the Train Signal Register (in short, 'TSR'), around the reported time of incident, only three trains had passed through the place of Digitally Signed FAO 41/2018 Page 2 of 4 By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:27.02.2023 12:13:29 Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/001396 incident. The first two trains were superfast trains being Golden Temple Mail and Kalindi Express, and the third train was the Ghaziabad-EMU.
Admittedly, the body of the deceased was discovered very close to line No.6, platform No.3 of Sahibabad Railway Station.
7. The Tribunal disbelieved the possibility of fall of deceased from the first train i.e., Ghaziabad-EMU Train, which had arrived at Sahibabad Railway Station at 06:17 hours and departed from there at 06:18 hours as the incident was reported at 07:10 hrs. The Tribunal assumed that the deceased must have travelled in either of the superfast trains which had passed the Sahibabad Railway Station at 06:45 hours and 06:55 hours respectively, and while attempting to de-board, he suffered the fatal injuries. In the backdrop of this assumption, the MST recovered from the body of deceased was ignored as it was not accompanied by a separate superfast surcharge ticket.
8. It is evident that the claim petition was dismissed only on the aforenoted assumption. The Tribunal failed to take into account that the incident occurred in the early morning of January, a winter month. Merely because other passengers present at the Sahibabad Railway Station reported seeing a person lying in dead state on the railway track at 07:10 a.m. did not mean that the incident itself occurred at that time. The possibility that the incident could have occurred earlier and discovered later could not be ruled out as the Ghaziabad-EMU train had passed at 06:18 hours.
9. In view of the above, it is difficult to appreciate as to how the Tribunal has reached a conclusion that the deceased must be travelling in either of the superfast trains and in absence of the superfast surcharge ticket, was not a bonafide passenger. The Act being beneficiary in nature, in view of the fact that the Ghaziabad-EMU train had also passed through the place Digitally Signed FAO 41/2018 Page 3 of 4 By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:27.02.2023 12:13:29 Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/001396 of incident some time before the reporting of incident, and in absence of any concrete material being placed on record that the deceased had fallen while travelling in a superfast train which did not have a stoppage at Sahibabad Railway Station, the Tribunal ought to have leaned in favor of the claimants.
10. Accordingly, the appellants succeed. The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for awarding the amount of compensation in terms of the Act, for which purpose the matter shall be listed before the Tribunal on 10.03.2023 at the first instance. The compensation amount be awarded to the appellants/claimants within a period of two weeks thereafter.
11. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
12. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the concerned Tribunal for information.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J FEBRUARY 22, 2023/v Digitally Signed FAO 41/2018 Page 4 of 4 By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:27.02.2023 12:13:29