Ram Babu & Ors. v. Union of India

(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.] to Banchari railway station in an EMU train and the husband of the deceased purchased the ticket from Ajhai railway station to Banchari and the deceased boarded the train in his presence. It has been claimed that there was heavy rush in the train and when the train reached at KM No. 1456/23-25 between Solaka railway station and Modal, Haryana the deceased Harbati who was standing near the gate fell down from the train due to heavy rush and sudden jerk of the train, received fatal injuries and the matter was reported to the police who registered the same in GRP, Palwal, Haryana vide DD No.4, dated 15.06.2013 and the post mortem on the body of the deceased was conducted in Distt. Hospital, Palwal, Haryana vide post mortem NO.PMR/05/PWL/146/2013 and that the deceased was having a valid ticket but the same was lost at the time of the accident. The applicant relied on the memo issued by Station Master, Palwal, Ex.A-l wherein it is recorded that – as reported by Gate Man Mr. Pritam Singh of 556 Gali one dead body of lady lying main line between HDL-SHLK Section. In the Death Report Ex.A-2 it is recorded as “Train accident”. The applicants placed on record the Fard Jamatalashi, Ex.A-3 wherein it is recorded to the effect that jamatalshi was conducted on the body of the unknown lady and apart from brass bangles artificial, one number Pajeb were recovered. In his statement, Ex.A-4, Budhram E/ASI has stated that he is posted under GRP Palwal as E/ASI and during his duty on 15.6.13 he accompanied the ASI to Km NO. 1456/23-25 where a dead body was lying and jamatalashi of the unknown woman was conducted and many people of the village saw the dead body but it could not identified and it appeared that the woman had after falling from the train. Lakhan, Gang Man in his statement, Ex.A- 5 has also stated on the same lines. However none of them was a witness to fall but just given a suggestion that deceased seems to have fallen from train. In the post mortem report, Ex.A-6 which is for an unknown female it has been recorded by the MO that " in my opinion, the cause of death in this case is shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem crush injuries to the body parts and compound fractures in the body, which is sufficient to cause death under ordinary course of nature. The possibility of such injuries in an accident cannot be ruled out including railway accidents". The statement of the first applicant, Ex.A-7 was recorded wherein he has stated that on 15.6.13 his wife deceased Harbati wanted to go to her mother's house and so he purchased a ticket from Ajhai station and got her to board the shuttle and returned to his house and in the afternoon of 15.6.13 he enquired from his brother-in-law (SALA) Rambir whether his deceased wife Harbati had reached there or not and his brother in law told him that she had not reached her village Banchari so he went to Banchari to search for his wife but could not find anything and on 16.6.13 he saw news in Danik Jagran newspaper about the body of a lady and after reading the newspaper he along with his brother-in-law Rambir and other persons from the village reached Civil Hospital, Palwal and there he identified the dead body as that of his wife Harbati and that he has seen the body closely and it appeared the death of his wife Harbati occurred due to fall from the train. The applicants have also placed on record the statement of Rambir a cousin of deceased as Ex.A-8, reiterating the same facts. The first applicant Ram Babu filed his evidence by way of affidavit and he was examined as AW-1. In his cross-examination he has deposed that his wife went on 15.6.2013 in the morning at 6 O'clock and he came to know about the incident on the next day and he got the information about his wife from the newspaper Danik Bhaskar.

8. Ld. Counsel for the respondent controverted all the facts of the claim application & submitted that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and was not a victim of any untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 and that the post mortem report and the Inquest report annexed with the claim application show that the injuries sustained by the deceased are not only crush ones but there is amputation of body in three parts which were scattered on the tracks and the deceased was run over by some unknown train while crossing the tacks illegally. No evidence, however has been placed on record by the respondent, even the mandatory DRM report is not produced, hence to that extent adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondent.

9. From the documents on record it is abundantly clear that no ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased whereas as per Fard '"jamatalashi, Ex.A-3 brass bangles and pajebs were recovered obviously these were things which she was wearing. There are a lot of contradictions in the deposition of the first applicant Ram Babu. In his cross-examination he has deposed that his wife had gone on 15th in the morning at 6 O'clock and that he had not seen his wife boarding any train or falling from any train but subsequently he has gone on to depose that he had seen his wife boarding the train. In the petition or affidavit there is no mention of ticket. For the first time only in the deposition of AW-1 it has been been claimed that he had purchased a ticket for Rs.7/for his deceased wife and that he had lodged a complaint regarding the loss of the ticket in the Thana at Palwal but he has gone on to depose and admit that he does not have any such complaint which he had lodged in the Thana at Palwal. A perusal of the memo, Ex.A-1 reveals that it is recorded therein that as reported by Gate Man Mr. Pritam Singh one dead body of a lady lying on main line between HDL- SHKL. Further in the Death Report, Ex.A-2 there is no mention of fall from the train it is only mentioned as "Due to Train" and as per the Naksha of the spot of incident the body was found in three parts. Even in the Post Mortem report dated 16/6/2013, Ex.A-6 which is for an unknown person, it is recorded as "due to train" as per police papers and under Injuries - (1) Both upper limbs are separated out from the body and from the raw area massive bleeding was present some foreign body particles and some part of soft and hard tissue were missing. Muscle tissue was badly culted. (2) Both lower limbs are crushed and separated out below knee. Some foreign body particles present at the raw areas and Compound # of left side of skull with herniation of brain matter was present…. Another point which is observed that the claim application was filed on 17.1.2014 and that date of incident is 15.6.2013 i.e the claim application was filed after 7 months of the occurrence of the incident and in the amended memo of parties applicant no.4 Durgesh the daughter of the deceased is shown to be an year old i.e. to say that at the time of the incident she must have been hardly a few months old and it is highly unlikely that a woman would leave her few months old child at home and go to her mother’s house. The first applicant Ram Babu in his statement, Ex.A-7 has stated that he had purchased the ticket and had got his wife to board the train the morning on 15.6.13 and in the afternoon he had enquired from his brother-in-law Rajbir as to whether she had reached Banchari or not and when he found that she had not reached her mother's house then he searched for her but could not find her and it was only on 16.6.13 that he came to know about her death from the photograph of the body of lady in the newspaper Dainik Jagran. It Is observed that in none of the documents placed on record by the applicant the factum of fall from the train could be established. In the present case non filing of the journey ticket could be set aside had the applicants been able to prove that the deceased had fallen from the train. There is an apparent attempt to project the accident as accidental fall from the train.”

8. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, submits that in view of the categorical testimony of AW-1 that he had purchased a journey ticket for his wife to travel to Banchari Railway Station in Haryana near District Palwal,it was erroneous to dismiss the claim merely on the ground that no railway/journey ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased. It is contended that the absence of a railway/journey ticket on the body cannot be conclusive, as the ticket may have been lost during the course of the accident. As observed by the learned Tribunal, AW-1 initially deposed that he had purchased a railway ticket for his wife, but in the same breath, he admitted that he had not seen her board the train. In fact, it was only during his deposition for the first time that he mentioned having purchased a ticket worth Rs. 7/- for his wife. The testimony of AW-1 does not appear to be truthful and cannot be relied upon.

9. It is also pertinent to note that in the Death Report (Ex. A-2), the cause of death was stated to be due to a train accident. However, there is no other evidence on the record to substantiate that the deceased had actually boarded a train and subsequently fell out of it. On the contrary, the post-mortem report (Ex. A-6) reveals that both upper and lower limbs of the deceased were crushed and separated from the body, effectively leaving it in three parts. These injuries are consistent with a case of the deceased having been run over by a train, leading to complete amputation and fragmentation of the body.

10. Thus, it is not possible to accept the plea that the deceased could have sustained such grievous injuries by falling from a bogie/coach of a train. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi[2], had an occasion to observe that the mere presence of a dead body on railway tracks or premises, cannot by itself, be conclusive proof to establish that injured/deceased was a bona-fide passenger.

11. Since the primary burden of proving the aforesaid fundamental 2 (2019) 3SCC 572 facts has not been discharged, this Court is unable to find any illegality, perversity, or incorrect approach adopted by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed and accordingly disposed of.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J. MAY 09 2025/SP/SS