Patna High Court - Orders
Jaleshwar Das vs The Union Of India on 17 April, 2013
Author: Akhilesh Chandra
Bench: Akhilesh Chandra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.759 of 2011
======================================================
Jaleshwar Das, Son of Late Deo Nath Das, resident of village - Englishpur,
P.O. - Englishpur, P.S. - Rebilganj, District - Saran (Chhpara) (Bihar)
.... .... Applicant/Appellant
Versus
The Union of India, through the General Manager, North East Railway,
Gorakhpur (U.P.)
.... .... Respondent/Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Krishna Mohan Murari, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Mahesh Prasad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA
C.A.V. ORDER
22 17-04-2013This is an appeal preferred by the claimant-appellant against the order dated 21st July, 2011 passed in Claim Case No. O.A.00096 of 2000 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, dismissing the claim of the appellant.
2. This is an admitted case of the parties that the deceased mother of the claimant while returning from Suremnpur on 07.10.1999 on a train bearing no. 5217 (Pawan Express) had fallen down near Rebilganj Station and brought for treatment by the police officials at Sadar Hospital, Chhapara, wherein, she died during the course of treatment on 18.10.1999.
3. It is the case of the appellant that the deceased had a ticket for Chhapara Station, but since the train stopped at Rebilganj Station and the co-passengers having their destination nearer coming down from the train and, likewise, the deceased Patna High Court MA No.759 of 2011 (22) dt.17-04-2013 2/5 also and in that process the deceased fell down, suffered an accident, which resulted into her death and compensation for Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs) was claimed. On the other hand, the claim was disputed on two grounds:- (i) There was no scheduled stoppage of the said train at Rebilganj Station and (ii) The deceased had no railway ticket.
4. To support the claim made on behalf of the claimant there is one Uday Ram (co-passenger), who claimed to purchase two tickets, one for himself and another for the deceased and handed it over to her. The possibility of loss of such ticket during accident cannot be ruled out. More so, a Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal between "Smt. Kaushalaya Devi & Ors. Vs. Union of India, Through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, U.P." reported in "2008(3) PLJR 711" in paragraph - 5 of the judgment has clearly held:-
"5. Railways Act provides prosecution of persons entering Railway Stations without valid journey ticket or platform ticket. That makes its abundantly clear that without a ticket, either for undertaking a journey or for the purpose of visiting the platform, no one is entitle to be within the precincts of a Railway Station.
That the person was in the precincts of the Railway Station would, therefore, logically have a presumption that he had a ticket for him. That he did not have a ticket was obligatory on the part Patna High Court MA No.759 of 2011 (22) dt.17-04-2013 3/5 of the Railway Administration to prove".
And the same has subsequently being followed in a case between "Chandarik Sah @ Chandrika Sah & Anr. Vs. The Union of India represented though the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur (Bihar)" reported in "2012(2) PLJR 823".
5. It is true that the said train has no scheduled stoppage at Rebilganj Station as is evident from the copy of Railway Time Table (chart) produced during appeal as well admitted by the claimant and the witnesses examined, who also have said that in spite of no scheduled stoppage the train stopped for a while and taking advantage of the situation, A.W. - 3, Uday Ram, came down, but the deceased in that course could not and suffered accident.
6. The crux of the claim is that stoppage of the train even for a while at Rebilganj Station this could have been disproved, if at all, by a cogent documentary evidence in the sake of station diary of Rebilganj Railway Station, which requires to have entry about the stoppage of the train, if any, as well period thereof and when during the appeal query of such station diary was made, learned counsel representing the respondent after Patna High Court MA No.759 of 2011 (22) dt.17-04-2013 4/5 taking substantial time referred "Rule 3042 under Chapter III of the Duties and Responsibilities of Station Staff", submits that such station diary was to be preserved for one year only and by lapse of time it has been destroyed and even the name of Guard of the said train on the relevant date is also not possible to locate since in the papers available with the Guard also such details could have been procured. Thus, in the absence of all such papers of which railway respondent is the only custodian not only an adverse interference is to be drawn against, but also the statements of the witnesses produced on behalf of the appellant on the point of the train having a halt for limited period at the relevant time and place is to be accepted. In such circumstances, coming down of the train by the co-passengers and the deceased having their destination nearer is natural and common phenomenon in India and when any wrong was committed during such transaction the railway cannot deny to compensate.
7. As regard to absence of railway ticket is concerned likewise in the cases of "Smt. Kaushalaya Devi & Ors." and "Chandarik Sah @ Chandrika Sah & Anr." (supra), in the instant case also no evidence is produced to rebut the presumption of the deceased being a bona fide passenger since travel covering substantial distance. This ground is also not available to the Patna High Court MA No.759 of 2011 (22) dt.17-04-2013 5/5 respondent.
8. In the result, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal is hereby allowed. The Railway Authorities were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs) to the appellant with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of actual payment.
(Akhilesh Chandra, J) Praveen-II/-
A.F.R.