Delhi High Court
Kanti Devi & Ors. vs Union Of India on 18 March, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 103/2011
% 18th March, 2014
KANTI DEVI & ORS. ......Appellants
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Mehta, Adv.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA ...... Respondent
Through: Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This first appeal shows that how the establishment of the Railway Claims Tribunal is misused by unscrupulous people to get the statutory compensation, which is of a large amount of Rs. 4 lacs. I am forced to observe that the present litigation is false because whereas in almost every case of an incident happening of a train accident or of fall from a train, there exist not one but numerous documents/reports which are prepared of the same date and immediate following dates including of recording of various statements from different witnesses of the untoward incident. Whenever there is a train accident/untoward incident, invariably there is either the report of a Railway official including a driver or a guard of a train or a FAO 103/2011 Page 1 of 8 station master or railway police, or the local police and so on. However, in the present case, there is only one document on the basis of which the claim petition is filed alleging an untoward incident, and which is the self-serving statement made to the police on 29.3.2009, although the incident is alleged to be of 22.2.2009 ie 35 days earlier.
2. The facts as pleaded by the appellant/applicant were that the deceased Sh. Suresh Prasad boarded train no. 2506 DN North East Express at New Delhi Junction for travelling to Patna and that when the train was approaching the Patna Junction, the deceased Suresh Prasad fell down from the train on account of jostling between the passengers. It is claimed that Suresh Prasad was thereafter brought to Patna Medical College Hospital for treatment and was discharged on 11.4.2009. It may be noted that the deceased Suresh Prasad was alive when he filed the claim petition, but, he expired during the pendency of the proceedings before the Railway Claims Tribunal.
3. In the present case, admittedly, no train ticket was recovered from the jamatalashi/search of the person of Suresh Prasad either by the hospital authorities or by any railway official or by the police official. Not only there was no train ticket found or filed, the fact of the matter is that it is not as if FAO 103/2011 Page 2 of 8 the deceased Suresh Prasad had no friends or relatives who would not have reported the train accident/untoward incident to either the railway authorities or to the police authorities if not on the same date of the incident but soon thereafter. Therefore, I agree with the conclusion of the Railway Claims Tribunal that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, and in fact he was not even travelling on the train from which he is alleged to have fallen off or for that matter from any train.
4. It bears reiteration that admittedly, the first statement /entry of a fall from the train on 22.2.2009 was made only by the deceased himself on 29.3.2009. A reading of this statement does not show that the deceased was in a state of continuous unconsciousness from 22.2.2009 till his statement was recorded on 29.3.2009 that he would not have reported/stated about the alleged untoward incident on 22.2.2009 or so on thereafter. As already stated above, if there was a train accident/untoward incident, besides the deceased Suresh Prasad the same would have been reported if not by him then by his family members or well-wishers or other relatives etc, who had come to the hospital.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued with vehemence that the respondent/Railways was bound to file the report of the Division Railway FAO 103/2011 Page 3 of 8 Manager (DRM) in accordance with the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 and which has not been done either before the Tribunal or even in this Court in spite of orders and therefore, an adverse inference should be drawn against the respondent/Railways that an untoward incident did in fact take place. For this purpose, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Jayalakshmi and others Vs. Union of India 2013 ACJ 1707.
6. This argument urged on behalf of the appellant is totally misconceived because the process under Rules 7 to 10 of the 2003 Rules starts pursuant to the earlier Rules 3 to 6 and which require reporting by railway servant after coming to know of an occurrence of an untoward incident. Surely therefore, if no railway servant has seen an untoward incident, there does not arise the possibility of consequential reports under Rules 3 to 6, and thereafter of the enquiries as per Rules 7 to 10. In the present case, it is not the case of the appellant that any railway official did see the untoward incident but yet he did not report the same. As already stated above, the first and the only report alleging incident of falling from the train is of the statement made by Sh. Suresh Prasad himself on 29.3.2009. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, the judgment relied upon by the appellants in the case of FAO 103/2011 Page 4 of 8 Jayalakshmi (supra) would have no application. The ratio of each case has to be read as per facts of that case, and in Jayalakshmi (supra) observation as to requirement of DRM's report is because valid train travel was otherwise established in that case.
7. Counsel for the appellant next placed reliance upon the report prepared by the local police dated 26.3.2009 to argue that the appellants entitled to compensation because this report dated 26.3.2009 shows that an untoward incident took place as stated by the police. This argument urged on behalf of the appellants is misconceived not only because the report dated 26.3.2009 prepared by the railway police at Patna is not of a contemporaneous period to the alleged incident on 22.2.2009, but also I note that the same completely lacks credibility because though mention is made in the same of an incident on 22.2.2009 but that is observed to be as per enquiries conducted from local people, but, who were these local people, their names and addresses and whether they were eye witnesses of the accident etc etc are not at all mentioned in the report. In my opinion, this report has been got procured/manipulated by the appellants for filing of the misconceived and false claim petition in the present case. FAO 103/2011 Page 5 of 8
8. Learned counsel for the appellants relies upon the judgment in the case of Parmanand Katara Vs. Union of India and Others 1989 ACJ 1000 to argue that it is not necessary that police reports be prepared and enquiries be conducted by the hospital authorities because the object is first to save the life of a person who is injured. Obviously, there cannot be any dispute to this proposition, however, in the present case, it is not the stand of the appellants that from the clothes of the deceased any ticket was recovered and it is not as if that the family members of the deceased Sh. Suresh Prasad never contacted the deceased Suresh Prasad in the hospital immediately after the incident or that they did not talk to him till 23.3.2009 when he first made the statement to the police. Therefore I fail to understand how the ratio of Parmanand Katara's case (supra) that hospital authorities must save lives applies to this case.
9. I find it totally improbable, inconceivable and the abuse of the process of law in the facts of the present case of a case being put up that a railway accident/untoward incident has happened in the facts of the present case.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant repeatedly wanted to cite various judgments, however, I fail to understand as to what judgments can do in the facts of a case such as the present where the facts show that there is no FAO 103/2011 Page 6 of 8 untoward incident. The judgments delivered by courts are as per the facts of each case and first the facts have to show that a untoward incident has happened for compensation to be claimed under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and, the appellants have miserably failed to prove/show in the present case that a train accident/untoward incident happened.
11(i) In view of the above, it is clear that the claim petition, as well as this appeal, is an abuse of the process of law and an endeavour to defraud the Railways by claiming statutory compensation of Rs.4 lacs. I have already stated above, that there is not a single report or a document of a railway official or the railway police or the local police of an incident of falling from the train of the same date of the incident or of soon thereafter, and the only document of an alleged untoward incident is of 35 days after the date of the alleged untoward incident.
(ii) There are many cases which are coming up in appeal before this Court where it is clear that there seems to be, in some cases, a racket being indulged into so as to get the huge statutory compensation of Rs. 4 lacs. Persons who seek compensation are aided and abetted by people who know the procedure of the Railway Claims Tribunal and resultantly incidents are FAO 103/2011 Page 7 of 8 sought to be created as untoward incidents as defined under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act so as to claim compensation of the amount of Rs.4 lacs which is granted by the Courts alongwith pendent lite and future interest.
12. In view of the above, there is no merit whatsoever in the appeal, and which is therefore dismissed, with the simultaneous direction to the Registrar General to conduct a preliminary enquiry and give a report with respect to offences committed which are the subject matter of Section 340 Cr. P.C by the appellants and all those who have abetted them. The appellants are majors as informed to me by their counsel.
13. List before the Registrar General for conducting a preliminary enquiry under Section 340 Cr. P.C in terms of the present judgment on 21 st April, 2014.
MARCH 18, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
FAO 103/2011 Page 8 of 8