Chander Shekhar & Anr v. Union of India

1. No one appears for the respondent when the matter was called.

2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and on perusal of the record, this Court proceeds to decide the present appeal instituted by the appellants/claimants under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 [‘RCT Act’] seeking quashing of the impugned judgment-cum-award dated 31.10.2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi [‘RCT’], whereby their claim for statutory compensation on account of death of their son/Pankaj was dismissed.

3. In a nutshell, it was the case of the claimants that their deceased son Pankaj, was travelling by Gomti Express on 01.11.2016 from Shikohabad to New Delhi on a valid journey ticket bearing NO. 10322307 dated 31.10.2016 and when the said train was passing Ghaziabad Railway Station, he came near the gate of the train compartment and accidently fell down from the moving train, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries all over his body. It was claimed that though some public-spirited person got him admitted in Ambay Hospital, Ghaziabad, but his condition deteriorated and subsequently he was referred to GTB Hospital, Delhi where he succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident. Hence, they claim compensation from the respondent.

4. The respondent contested the claim petition and though based on the DRM report, it was acknowledged that the deceased died from a running train, it was averred that the deceased was guilty of gross negligence on his part. Further, it was denied that the deceased was a bona-fide passenger as it was claimed that the railway ticket from the jamatalashi was purchased from Shikohabad Railway Station at 22:54 hours on 31.10.2016 and it was not valid for undertaking the journey by Gomti Express Train on the subsequent day. The learned RCT based on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:- “1) Whether the ticket produced Is valid for the journey and the deceased is a passenger as defined under the Act?

2) Whether the applicants are the legal heirs and dependants of the deceased within the meaning of Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989?

3) To what amount of compensation, if any, are the applicants entitled?

4) Relief, if any?

5. Suffice to state that the learned RCT found that the railway ticket was valid only for 24 hours of the day and it did not authorize the deceased to travel beyond 31.10.2016, whereas the accident occurred early morning on 01.11.2016. Thus, the learned RCT while holding that the deceased was not a bona-fide passenger, also held that there was no evidence that he fell from the moving train and therefore, it was held to be not a case of ‘untoward incident’. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned RCT, the appellants filed this present appeal.

6. At this stage, it would be apposite to reproduce the reasons which prevailed in the mind of the learned RCT while holding that the deceased was not a bona-fide passenger, which read as under:-

1. Ld. Counsel for the respondent railway states that every journey ticket issued by the railways for travel in an unreserved class has a validity period. In this connection, Commercial Circular No.5 of 2016, issued by the Railway Board on 22.01.2016, was produced before this Tribunal. A perusal of this circular indicates that upto a journey of 199 kms., a ticket is valid for 3 hours from the time of issue of the ticket or availability of first train for the destination station, whichever is later. However, this circular does not bring out clearly the period of validity of journey ticket for journey for a distance of 200 kms. or above. In the present case, the journey ticket, which was said to have been recovered from the dead body of the deceased, is seen to be for a distance of 246 kms. Obviously, the rule referred to above would not be applicable. The same circular also mentions that for the distance of 200 kms. or above, there will be no change in the existing provision. Ld. Counsel for the applicants wanted to know as to what is the description of the existing provision. She submitted in support of her understanding of the issue, a paper, which was said to have been downloaded from a website. As per this paper, an unreserved ticket for a distance of 200 kms. or above is stated to be valid for 24 hours and that the passenger must begin the journey within that time. A perusal of this paper, however, shows that it is in the form, of an answer given by one individual to a query raised in general by few individuals on a social media. Ld. Counsel for the applicant would not mention the name of the website from where the aforesaid paper was downloaded. A prima-facie perusal of this paper shows that it does not bear any authenticity as having been issued by the Ministry of Railways, Govt. of India. Accordingly, the respondent railway was directed to submit an authentic document, which would clearly bring out the rules for validity of the ticket for a journey in an unreserved segment for distance of 200 kms. or above. The respondent railway has submitted a letter bearing No.TC- II/2002/2015/Val. Tickets dated 09.10.2018, issued by the Railway Board, New Delhi, in which it has been clarified that for a journey of 200 kms. or above in an unreserved segment, the journey ticket shall remain valid upto 24.00 hrs. of the day, for which the journey ticket has been issued, except in a situation, where the ticket, is issued in advance when the validity of the ticket shall be upto 24.00 hrs. of the day of travel. A perusal of the ticket, filed by the applicants in the claim application, shows that this ticket is not issued in advance, otherwise two separate dates, one as the date of issue and the other as the date of travel would have been printed on it. Thus, the ticket, issued for a distance of 246 kms. and not issued in advance, will have a validity upto 24.00 hrs. of the day, for which the ticket was issued i.e. of 31.10.2016 in the instant case. Hence, it is clear that since the journey by the deceased was commenced at 11.00 hrs. on 01.11.2016, the said journey ticket, which was purchased at 22.54 hrs. of 31.10.2016, cannot be taken as a valid journey ticket in view of the Railway Board's aforesaid clarificatory letter dated 09.10.2018.

2. So far as the issue of incident being covered as an untoward incident is concerned, there is no eyewitness to the incident. As per the records of the case file, there Is no memo issued by any railway authority, nor there is any message issued by the Police Control Room about the alleged incident or any DD entry recorded by police showing the injured having been taken to the hospital from the site. In the claim application, it has only been mentioned that some members of the public had got the deceased admitted in Ambay Hospital, Ghaziabad, under MLR, from where the deceased was referred to G.T.B. Hospital, Delhi. A perusal of the death summary, prepared by the G.T.B. Hospital, Delhi, shows that, the patient (deceased) had arrived in this hospital in an unconscious condition and he died in the hospital. There is no direct or indirect cogent evidence to establish that the death of the deceased was as a result of any fall from the train.

3. I, therefore, hold that neither the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question, nor his death was the result of any alleged fall from the train in question as contended by the applicants. Issue No.1 is decided in the negative against the applicant.

7. At the outset, the aforesaid reasons given by the learned RCT are absolutely unconscionable and perverse, and thus, liable to be setaside. First thing first, as per the DRM report, a conclusion was drawn as per the police report filed by PS: GTB Enclave, Delhi that the deceased had fallen from a moving train and died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. However, in the same breath, it was opined that the deceased was probably negligent as he was travelling near the gate/entry/exit of the moving train.

8. In the face of the aforesaid DRM report, the finding recorded by the learned RCT that the deceased did not die as a result of an ‘untoward incident’ within the meaning of Section 123(c) (2) 1 of the Railways Act, 1989 [‘Act’] cannot be sustained in law.

9. Further, there is no evidence that the deceased was in any manner rash or negligent or that the death occurred due to suicide or attempt to commit suicide. There is no evidence that the injuries were self- inflicted or that the deceased was intoxicated or insane and therefore, the respondent cannot disclaim its liability under Section 124A of the Act[2]. 1 123 [(c) “untoward incident” means— (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.] 2 2 [124A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents.—When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay