Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devkabai Wd/O Ganpat And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through General ... on 14 March, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007ACJ2380, AIR 2006 MADHYA PRADESH 201, 2007 (2) ABR (NOC) 275 (MP) (2007) 4 ACJ 2380, (2007) 4 ACJ 2380, 2007 (2) ABR (NOC) 275 (M. P.) = 2007 A I H C 88, 2007 A I H C 88 (2006) 4 MPLJ 542, (2006) 4 MPLJ 542
ORDER S.L. Jain, J.
1. Invoking appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1977, (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act' for short) the appellants have filed this appeal calling in question the legality, propriety, correctness and validity of the judgment dated 6-1-9, passed by Railway claims Tribunal, Bhopal in O.A. No. 57/97, dismissing the application filed by the appellants for compensation on account; of death of Ganput who is alleged to have died in an accident or in an untoward incident as defined under Sections 123 and 124A of the Act.
2. The facts which led to filing of this appeal shortly narrated are that the claimants-appellants filed an application under the Act for a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- claiming themselves to he the legal representatives of deceased Ganpat who died while traveling in a train from Indore to Mhow.
3. The case of the appellants before the claims Tribunal in short was that deceased Ganpat was a bona fide passenger of train No. 581 up Ajmer-Kachiguda Express for traveling from Indore to Mhow on 15-2-1996. When deceased Ganpat entered in the compartment, the train moved suddenly without giving any whistle or any other warning. Because of the jerk, the hands of the deceased slipped from the bar which ho was holding. As a result, the deceased fell down under the train. The train ran over the deceased, as a result of which he died. The postmortem of the deceased was performed. The doctors opined that the deceased died due to multiple injuries.
4. The allegations made in the claim petition were controverted by the Railways. They alleged that the deceased fell down from the train because of his own negligence and therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation.
5. The matter was heard by the two members of the Tribunal. As there was difference of opinion between the learned members of the Tribunal, the Chairman Railways Claims Tribunal nominated a third member Under Section 21 of the Act to give his opinion. After hearing the parties, the learned third member dismissed the appellants' claim on the ground that they have failed to prove that the deceased was holding a valid railway ticket. As it could not be established that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, his legal representatives are not entitled to any compensation.
6. It is this judgment of the Claims Tribunal which is the cause of grievance of the appellants.
7. I have heard Smt. Amrit Ruprah, counsel for the appellants and Shri S.I'. Sinha, counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the claim for compensation could not have been negatived by the Tribunal only on the ground that it could not be proved that the deceased was holding a valid Railway ticket, pass or permission for the journey.
9. The learned Counsel for the appellants also submitted that when a person is found dead as a result of accident or any untoward incident in a railway carriage, in which he was traveling, a presumption may be drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that the deceased was a bona fide passenger keeping in view the prohibition under Section 68 of the Railways Act against the boarding a train without ticket. Since ticket less travel is an illegal act, the presumption is of innocence in favour of such one of the travelers or passengers in a train. It is for the railway administration to prove contrary and the burden in such circumstances that the passenger was a ticket less traveler or was not a bana fide railway traveler, should be on the railway administration which has special means of knowledge as to whether any ticket was issued to the passenger or whether at any point before or at the end of journey, he was checked and detected by the staff of the railway as an unauthorized person without ticket, pass or permission, In support of the contention, learned Counsel relied on two division Bench decisions of this Court in Raj Kumari and Ors. v. Union of India and Union of India v. Jshna Kanhar .
10. So far as the presumption as argued by the counsel for the appellants is concerned the matter is covered by the aforesaid Division Bench decisions of this Court. Therefore, the contention is acceptable and it is held that the burden to prove that the passenger was traveling without ticket lies on the railways.
11. Learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that as per the case of the appellants themselves, the deceased fell down immediately when he boarded the train, There was no occasion for cheeking as to whether the deceased had purchased the ticket. It was not found either in his pocket or in his luggage or on the spot.
12. The contention is not acceptable. There is no evidence that the entire luggage of the deceased was seised or his pocket was searched or the ticket was searched at the spot.
13. There can be many reasons due to which the ticket could not be traced. It cannot be ruled out that the deceased was having ticket in his hand and when he fell down, the ticket was misplaced. It can also not be ruled out that the ticket was in the luggage which the deceased was carrying. There is no evidence that the luggage was seized. Therefore, simply because the police authorities did not make efforts to discover or recover the ticket, it could not be said that deceased was traveling without ticket.
14. So far as the present case is concerned, there is not only a presumption in favour of the appellants but there is evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the deceased was traveling with ticket. In the affidavit filed by Ramnath, it has boon clearly stated that he also accompanied the deceased while traveling from Indore to Mhow. The witness has stated that he himself and deceased both purchased the tickets. When they were hoarding, the train immediately moved without giving any Whistle, as a consequence, the deceased fell down from the train. The wheels of the train ran over the deceased and consequently he died.
15. No affidavit or any other evidence has been given by the respondent to rebut the statement made by witness Ramnath in his affidavit. There was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Ramnath made in the affidavit to the effect that deceased purchased the ticket. In view of the affidavit filed by Ramnath and in view of the presumption as stated above, the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and was traveling without ticket cannot be countenanced.
16. I am of the view that the appellants are entitled to claim compensation.
17. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned judicial member awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum as per the schedule of Railway accidents compensation Rules, 1990. The compensation payable for death is Rs. 2,00,000/-, therefore, the applicants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
18. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed, Judgment impugned of the Railway Claims Tribunal is set aside. The application filed by the claimants is allowed. The respondent shall pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the appellants along with the interest as awarded by the judicial members of the Tribunal.