Patna High Court
Union Of India (Uoi) Through General ... vs Kaushalya Devi And Ors. on 27 July, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002ACJ833, 2001(49)BLJR1831
Author: S.K. Katriar
Bench: S.K. Katriar
JUDGMENT S.K. Katriar, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.2.1999, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, in Application No. OA-9700215 Kaushalya Devi v. Union of India, whereby the claim application of the claimants (the respondents herein) for compensation on account of the death of Ram Singar Singh has been allowed and compensation amount of Rs. 2,00,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of judgment has been allowed. The Union of India through the Indian Railways has preferred this appeal.
2. One Ram Singar Singh had boarded 5203 Up during the night intervening 4.7.1996 and 5.7.1996 at Hajipur for a destination which is not clear from the records of the case. Soon after the train had started moving he fell down from the train due to the rush and push. He was taken to Siwan Hospital and ultimately to Patna where he died. The post-mortem was done on the body and inquest report was prepared on the date of the death itself. Thereafter, his widow and children who were minors on the date of the accident, filed an application under Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, claiming compensation for the death of Ram Singar Singh.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The claimants examined Lakshman Paswan, a co-villager who claimed that he was travelling by the same train from Hajipur to Gorakhpur. The Tribunal has held that Ram Singar Singh was a bona fide passenger with a proper railway ticket and, therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation within the meaning of Section 123 (c) (2) of the Act with interest.
4. While assailing the validity of the impugned judgment, learned Counsel for the appellant (Union of India) has submitted that the finding recorded in the impugned judgment to the effect that the deceased was a bona fide passenger with a proper railway ticket is against the weight of the evidence on record. He has also submitted that the evidence of Lakshman Paswan is unworthy of reliance.
5. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents has submitted in opposition that the Tribunal in its well considered judgment has arrived at the correct conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. In the circumstances of the case, no better evidence could have been brought on record to establish that he was a bona fide passenger. He relies on the judgment of a learned single Judge of the Orissa High Court in Union of India v. Jshna Kanhar 2001 ACJ 871 (Orissa).
6. In view of the contention of the parties, the following issues arise for consideration in this appeal:
(i) In the facts and circumstances of the case whether or not presumption arises in favour of the deceased that he was a bona fide passenger?
(ii) Whether or not the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he was travelling with a proper ticket?
7. Having considered the submissions and having given my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this appeal ought to be allowed. The Tribunal has misdirected itself in appreciating the evidence on record. Section 123 of the Act is relevant in the present context and is set out herein below for quick reference:
123. Definitions.-In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) 'accident' means an accident of the nature described in Section 124;
(b) 'dependant' means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely:
(i) the wife, husband, son and daughter and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent;
(ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a predeceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger;
(iii) a minor child of a predeceased daughter, if wholly dependant on the deceased passenger;
(iv) the paternal grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger.
(c) 'untoward incident' means:
(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987; or
(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or
(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloakroom or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. (Emphasis supplied) It is thus manifest from a plain reading of Section 123 (c) (2) of the Act that the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers is an untoward incident entitling the passenger or heirs/legal representatives to the compensation under the Act. In the scheme of the Act, only bona fide passengers with valid tickets for journey would be covered by Section 123 (c) (2) of the Act and the rest are trespassers and unauthorised passengers not entitled to any compensation.
8. It appears from the evidence on record that the deceased died a few hours after his accident and the post-mortem and inquest reports were prepared soon thereafter which do not mention that the deceased was carrying a railway ticket for the journey. The Tribunal has laid considerable emphasis on the deposition of Lakshman Paswan and has held on the strength of the same that the deceased was carrying a valid railway ticket. He deposed to the effect that he had seen Ram Singar Singh at the railway station and had also seen him at the counter purchasing a railway ticket. Lakshman Paswan was himself travelling from Hajipur to Gorakhpur and, according to his deposition, soon after the train started leaving the platform, Ram Singar Singh fell down on account of the rush and pull in the railway compartment and was run over by the train. The witness has not disclosed the destination station of the deceased. Lakshman Paswan was travelling from Hajipur to Gorakhpur and in view of the position that the train did not stop in spite of the accident, Lakshman Paswan travelled up to Gorakhpur and returned to the village after four days and informed the family members of the deceased about the accident that led to inquiry by them who thus learnt of the death. To my mind, this witness does not inspire confidence and leaves a poor impression in my mind. He claims to be a co-villager and a fellow passenger and yet he did not terminate his journey at the earliest possible opportunity to look after the deceased who was travelling alone, as a result of which the family members of the deceased came to know of the death at least four days thereafter. He may have confused between the ticket counter and enquiry counter. He has obviously been set up to support the false claims of the claimants. There is thus no evidence in support of the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket for his train journey. In that view of the matter, I painfully reach the conclusion that it is not possible to hold that the deceased was a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket for the railway journey he had undertaken.
9. I must deal with the judgment of the Orissa High Court in Union of India v. Jshna Kanhar 2001 ACJ 871 (Orissa), the following para of which has been relied on behalf of the claimants-respondents and is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference:
There cannot be any dispute that a claimant has to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger in the train. In the present case, there is no dispute that the deceased was a military personnel and being a member of the disciplined force, it can be inferred that in normal circumstances, a military personnel would not travel in a train without ticket or valid authority. Moreover, it is apparent that the deceased had already travelled a considerable distance from the station of origin. If he would have been a ticketless traveller, one would have expected the railway authorities to have detected such ticketless travelling. When a person dies in an accident by falling from the train and that too at a distant place, it is not possible for the legal representatives to produce the ticket or other authority to travel in the train. Depending upon the facts and circumstances of a given case, the Tribunal or the appellate court can infer about the deceased being a bona fide passenger. In the present case, the peculiar facts and circumstances noted above prima facie indicate that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and in the absence of any other material to indicate that, in fact, deceased was a ticketless traveller, the conclusion of the Claims Tribunal that deceased was a bona fide passenger cannot be said to be improper so as to warrant interference in this appeal.
There is no need for me to express myself on the merits of the judgment. Suffice it to say that the facts of that case were fundamentally different. In the reported judgment, the deceased had travelled a considerable distance from the station of origin and, therefore, the High Court of Orissa presumed in favour of the deceased that he must have purchased a ticket. In the present case, the deceased met with the accident within the precincts of the railway station of origin. Secondly, for the same reason, there was no occasion to do the ticket checking in the present case. Thirdly, the inquest report in the present case prepared soon after the accident and soon after the death did not indicate that the deceased was in possession of a valid ticket. Fourthly, I have for the reasons indicated hereinabove, discussed the evidence of the claimants and find them inadequate to reach the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The claimants are, therefore, not entitled to any compensation on account of the death of Ram Singar Singh.
10. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 26.2.1999, passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, in Application No. OA-9700215 Kaushalya Devi v. Union of India, is hereby set aside.