Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sanyokta Devi vs Union Of India on 2 February, 2023
Bench: Surya Kant, J.K. Maheshwari
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.770/2023
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No.31172/2017)
SANYOKTA DEVI Appellant(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant’s claim for award of compensation under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 was turned down by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna bench (in short: the Tribunal) vide an order dated 15102012. Her miscellaneous appeal against rejection of the claim was dismissed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna vide impugned Judgment dated 21062016. The appellant is now before this Court.
3. The husband of the appellant, late Vijay Singh (“the deceased”) purchased a valid railway ticket on 21032002 and boarded the Bhagalpur – Danapur Intercity Express at Bakhtiyarpur to go to Patna.
4. The case of the appellant was that the deceased accidentally fell down from the running train at the originating station itself, due to heavy rush inside the compartment. It appears that the deceased was crushed under the train and died instantly. One of the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND sons of the appellant, namely, Dilip Kumar is reported to have Date: 2023.02.09 10:50:58 IST Reason: stated before the Police Officers of the Government Railway Police Station, Bakhtiyarpur on 21032002 at 16:15 hours that at around 2 2.002.30 pm, he was informed telephonically about his father having died in a rail accident. He reached at the spot of accident at around 4.15 pm and identified the dead body of his father and is alleged to have stated that “due to mental sickness from the last 10 years, he used to roam here and there”. He is further stated to have reported to the Police that his father had died after falling from the train, as per witnesses and nobody was at fault. An F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of the said report.
5. The appellant in her claim petition, filed on 29082002, specifically averred that her husband was “mentally and physically healthy and a fit person” and that her son Dilip Kumar never stated before the Police that his father had lost his mental balance. In support of her claim petition, the appellant filed an affidavit; appeared as a witness and was subjected to crossexamination. She specifically denied the allegation that her husband’s mental condition was not good.
6. It was further averred that her son Dilip Kumar had given a statement on 21032002 but the Police Officer of GRPS took his signatures, distorted the facts and wrongly mentioned his statement with regard to the mental health of her deceased husband. Dilip Kumar, son of the appellant also filed an affidavit before the Railway Claims Tribunal on 24072012 stating that the Investigating Officer had taken his signatures and later on, misrepresented the facts and wrongly mentioned that his father was of unsound mind and used to wander here and there aimlessly. He 3 further averred that the Final Report of the Police was also factually incorrect.
7. It may also be noticed that in her affidavit filed in support of the Claim Petition, the appellant in para 10 specifically disclosed that besides her the deceased was survived by two sons namely, Dilip Kumar, aged 42 years, and Samir Kumar, aged 40 years, who were not dependent on him and hence, she being the lone dependent of the deceased had filed the Claim Petition.
8. The Tribunal rejected the appellant’s Claim Petition holding that neither the appellant nor her son were to be believed. According to the Tribunal, Dilip Kumar, son of the appellant was not aware of his father’s journey to Patna at the time when his statement was recorded on 21032002 and that what was meticulously averred by the appellant in her Claim Petition also indicated that her version was an afterthought in order to receive the benefit of compensation and she misrepresented the facts before the Tribunal.
9. The High Court turned down the appellant’s challenge to the Tribunal’s Order observing as follows: “6. Claim petition had alone been filed by Sanyukta Devi, wife without disclosing that how many siblings she had from her husband and further, petition was filed on behalf of all the siblings. Although presence of Dilip was there in the recital of the petition but the reasons best known to the claimant, she had not opted to allow him to stood over petition as a party. The aforesaid event was purposely made in the background of presence of mental condition of deceased having disclosed at the end of Dilip. That happens 4 to be reason behind that even during trial, a strange methodology was adopted by the claimant wherein withholding physical presence of Dilip for the purpose of crossexamination, filed his evidence on an affidavit & on account thereof, that had lost its legal identity.
7. From the petition, it is apparent that claimant was well aware of the averments whatever been at the end of her son Dilip regarding mental condition of the deceased, which, neither been properly explained nor denied at the end of the claimant. However, during course of trial, while examining herself to be as AWl she stated under para9 of the affidavit that signature of Dilip was obtained by the police official on blank paper and then the narration was scribed in distorted way wherein purposely, intentionally and malafidely the mental condition of the deceased has been introduced by the police official that of unsound mind, which neither found in the petition nor has been substantiated by any cogent evidence that any sort of grudge was persisting which, provoked the police official to indulge in such kind of illegal activities. Furthermore, it was Dilip who was competent enough to depose, as fardbeyan was not recorded in the presence of claimant.”
10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the respondent(s).
11. With a view to ascertain the correctness of the rival pleas raised by the parties, original record of the Tribunal has been requisitioned and perused.
12. What emerges is the fact that the appellant’s claim was not accepted by both the Tribunal and the High Court solely on the ground that the deceased was of unsound mind and he was knocked 5 down by an unidentified train.
13. According to the Tribunal, had the deceased fallen from a crowded train in the morning hours, the copassengers would have definitely known and taken proactive action, either by stopping the train or by informing the Railway Authorities at the next station.
14. In our considered opinion, the reasons assigned by the Tribunal and the High Court are completely absurd, imaginary and contrary to the undisputed facts on record.
15. There is no denial on behalf of the respondent(s) that the deceased purchased a valid railway ticket to travel on the Bhagalpur – Danapur Intercity Express from Bakhtiyarpur to go to Patna.
16. He boarded the train and was travelling alone. Had he been of unsound mind, it would have been nearly impossible for him to purchase a ticket of a particular destination and board the train all by himself. These facts completely belie the allegations that the deceased was of unsound mind.
17. The fact that the deceased fell down from the train and thus died in a railway accident is not in dispute. How and in what manner the accident took place cannot be expected to be explained by the appellant as she was not accompanying her husband. In this regard, the son of the appellant – Dilip Kumar was equally helpless as he too was admittedly not present at the time and place of the accident.
6
18. The Appellant’s claim on account of an admitted death of her husband in a railway accident cannot be made dependent on the fact that copassengers of the appellant’s husband made no attempt to stop the train or report the matter to the Railway Police Authorities. Such an eventuality might not have arisen as soon after the accident took place at the originating station itself, the family was informed telephonically and within next two hours, formal First Information Report was lodged by the Railway Police at Bakhtiyarpur Junction.
19. There is no oral or documentary evidence to indicate the mental fitness of the deceased, except the statement alleged to have been made by his own son Dilip Kumar pursuant to which First Information Report was registered. The alleged statement cannot be held to be a conclusive proof of the mental health condition of the deceased, firstly, for the reason that Dilip Kumar subsequently on affidavit disowned any such statement; secondly, neither the respondent(s) examined any covillager nor produced any medical proof to substantiate their defence. In fact, no such specific plea has been taken by the respondent(s), except a question being put to the appellant in her crossexamination where she stoutly controverted the said allegation and asserted that her husband was mentally fit.
20. The Tribunal and the High Court have overlooked the fact that the appellant successfully discharged the initial onus on her by proving that the deceased had bought a valid railway ticket and 7 boarded the train to reach the specified destination. It was a compensatory claim, originating out of a social welfare legislation, and such claim ought to have been examined on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not on the parameters of “beyond any reasonable doubt” as we often apply in a criminal trial.
21. We are thus of the view that the Tribunal and High Court have unreasonably turned down a fair and just claim of the appellant.
22. Consequently and for the reasons aforestated, the Appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 15102012 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench and impugned Judgment and Order dated 21062016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna are, hereby, set aside. The Claim Petition of the Appellant is allowed and she is held entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/ (as was admissible at the relevant time) along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till its actual realization. The amount of compensation shall be paid to the appellant within two months.
…………………………………………J (SURYA KANT) …………………………………………J (J.K. MAHESHWARI) NEW DELHI 2ND FEBRUARY, 2023.
8
ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.9 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31172/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21062016 in MA No. 176/2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna) SANYOKTA DEVI Appellant(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s) (IA No. 32800/2021 APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS,IA No. 32797/2021 EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. & IA No. 32796/2021 PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 02022023 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI For Appellant(s) Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Adv. Ms. Fauzia Shakil, AOR Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Adv. Mr. Agastya Sen, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Jayant Kumar Sud, A.S.G. Mr. Rajan Kr. Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Kartik Jasra, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Nawanjai Mahapatra, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Mr. S. Subramanian, Adv. Ms. Ishita Farsaiya, Adv.
Mr. Tejas Patel, Adv.
Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Mr. Navanjay Mahpatra, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed, in terms of the signed Order.9
Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(VISHAL ANAND) (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRARcumPS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed Order is placed on the file)