Delhi High Court
Raj Bal & Ors. vs Union Of India on 3 March, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 171/2012
% 3rd March, 2014
RAJ BAL & ORS. ......Appellants
Through: Mr. S.K.Vashistha, Adv.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. P.K.Dey, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated 19.12.2011 which has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that though the death of Sh. Parveen Kumar took place on 1.3.2010 when his body was found lying on the tracks at Delhi Railway Station, however, the platform ticket is legally valid only for two hours for purchase from 7.20 pm and the accident took place at 9.55 PM i.e beyond two hours. Another ground for dismissing the claim petition is that no evidence has been led which shows that the deceased died on account of a train accident. FAO 171/2012 Page 1 of 6
2. The facts of the case as pleaded by the appellants/applicants were that the deceased Parveen Kumar came to Delhi for his school work from Faruk Nagar alongwith his maternal uncle. On 1.3.2010, he purchased a platform ticket no. 47614900 for journey of his maternal uncle who was going to Khurja and thereafter both of them went to platform no.4 at Delhi Railway Station. It was further the case of the appellants/applicants that there was a huge and uncontrolled rush of passengers on the platform and when the New Delhi EMU train came at platform no.4 then due to thrust from passengers, the deceased Parveen Kumar got hit and fell down on the railway track resulting in grievous injuries and died at the spot.
3. In my opinion, the Railway Claims Tribunal has quite clearly erred in dismissing the claim petition inasmuch as both the reasons relied upon by the Tribunal are quite clearly perverse to say the least. Firstly, assuming that the deceased died at 9.55 PM and the ticket was purchased at 7.20 PM, it cannot be held that since the platform ticket was valid only for two hours, the deceased Parveen Kumar after the period of two hours of purchase of the ticket would become a trespasser. I would have understood a case where platform ticket was of one day and accident took place on the next date or thereafter and in which case there would be an issue of a person being a FAO 171/2012 Page 2 of 6 trespasser as the validity of platform ticket is ordinarily for two hours. The validity only for two hours presumes that all trains in this country run on time. Surely, this is not so. Therefore, noting that the object of provisions is to impose a strict liability upon the Railways, hence, Sections 123(c), 124 and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 have to be given a purposive construction. It may be noted that person holding a valid platform ticket is a bonafide passenger as per the Explanation to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. This Explanation reads as under:-
"124A. Compensation on account of untoward incident.- .......................
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "passenger"
includes-
(i) a railway servant on duty; and
(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident."
4. It is further required to be stated that even factually the conclusion of the Railway Claims Tribunal that the accident happened at 9.55 AM is unfortunately totally and wholly perverse because there was a statement of an eye witness being a stall holder on the platform namely Hari Prasad, and FAO 171/2012 Page 3 of 6 whose statement has been filed and proved on record as Ex.AW1/5, and as per which statement the accident happened at 8.25 PM i.e within two hours of purchase of the platform ticket. This aspect is further corroborated by the document Ex.AW1/12 being the document drawn up by the police for sending of the body to the police mortuary and which mentions the time of accident as 8.30 P.M. Therefore, it is clear that in fact the train accident in which the deceased Parveen Kumar died, happened within two hours of the purchase of the train ticket at 7.20 P.M. i.e the accident happened at 8.25 -30 PM.
5. Wherever there is a train accident as per Section 124 (equivalent to old Section 82A), the Railways is liable and it is not and cannot be the case of the Railways that unless there is a falling from the train, there cannot be a train accident. In the present case, the deceased was pushed on account of the rush on the platform to the tracks as a result of which he suffered grievous injuries and he died and therefore the present is a clear case of a train accident under Section 124 of the Railways Act.
6. Even the second conclusion of the Railway Claims Tribunal that there is no evidence to show that a train accident occurred, is a misconceived conclusion, because, the statement of the independent eye witness Sh. Hari FAO 171/2012 Page 4 of 6 Parsad as AW1/5 shows that he was working in Stall No. 110 of Platform no. 4 at the Delhi Railway Station and immediately after leaving/passing/crossing of the train he found that the deceased Parveen Kumar lying dead on the tracks on account of being cut/run over by the train. This statement when taken with the fact that the appellants/applicants had led evidence to show that there was a lot of rush of passengers on the platform, it is clear that deceased Parveen Kumar died because of a train accident. I would also like to note at this stage that it is not the case of the respondent-Railways that the death of deceased Parveen Kumar is due to an act of suicide.
7. The conclusions of the Railway Claims Tribunal in the present case are wholly illegal not only because of the documents Ex.AW1/5 and Ex.AW1/12 as stated above, but also because the respondent-Railways led no evidence whatsoever before the Tribunal. No witness was examined by the respondent and even the DRM's report which the respondent/Railways was permitted to file has not been filed.
8. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The claim petition of the appellants-applicants will stand allowed for the statutory compensation of Rs.4 lacs alongwith pendente lite and future interest at 7 ½ % per annum FAO 171/2012 Page 5 of 6 simple. Compensation be granted to each of the five applicants in equal proportion by depositing the amounts payable to them in a nationalized bank. Bank Manager will ensure that monies after due identification are received by the applicants only directly in their hands and monies would not be payable to anyone else such as an agent or attorney etc. MARCH 03, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib FAO 171/2012 Page 6 of 6