Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 28th April, 2025
KUNAL .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ravi Sabharwal, Adv.
Through: Mr. Sandeep Tyagi, SPC
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/injured under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1923 [“RCT Act”] for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 17.07.2018 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi [“Tribunal”], whereby the claim for compensation filed by the him was dismissed.
2. In a nutshell, it is the case of the appellant that on 06.08.2017 he boarded EMU[1] train from platform No.6 at Sarai Rohilla Station, Delhi, at about 07:00 p.m. for returning to his house at Nangloi, Delhi, after completion of his daily work. The appellant claimed that the train was extremely crowded, leaving hardly any room to stand near the compartment gate. As the train crossed the bridge at Sarai Rohilla Station, Delhi, a sudden push from the fellow passengers caused him to fall from the moving train, resulting in his leg being run over by the train resulting in
1 Electric Multiple Unit amputation above knee thereby suffering disability to the extent of 80%. It was claimed that the journey ticket was lost during the incident. The respondent contested the claim petition based on the report of the DRM[2] to the effect that incident took place due to the negligent act of the claimant as he was travelling at the gate of the compartment of the train.
3. Learned Tribunal based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: “1. Whether the applicant was a bonafide passenger of the train in question at the relevant time of incident?
2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries in an untoward incident, as alleged in the claim application? If so, to what extent?
3. To what amount of compensation, if any, the applicant is entitled?
4. Relief, if any?
4. Suffice to state that issues No. 1 and 2 were decided against the appellant and the claim petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeal.
ANALYSIS & DECISION:
5. Although, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought accommodation for addressing arguments on another date.
6. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant at length and the fact that this is a long pending matter since 12.11.2018, adjournment was declined. I have perused the relevant record of the case including the digitized record of the Tribunal.
7. First things first, it would be expedient to reproduce the findings the recorded by the learned Tribunal on issues No. 1 and 2, which go as under: “(1) Whether the applicant was a bonafide passenger of the train in question at the relevant time of the incident?
1. The applicant's version is that on 06.08.2017, he was travelling from Delhi Sarai Rohilla to Nangloi by an EMU Train, having purchased a valid journey ticket, which was lost in the incident. Applicant presented himself as AW-1 before this Bench on 05.06.2018 and was cross-examined. He deposed that he was a daily-commuter between Nangloi and Delhi Sarai Rohilla since he was residing at Nangloi and had to come for work of tailoring in a shop, located near Delhi Sarai Rohilla. It was nearly one year prior to the Incident that he has been commuting this way. He further deposed that while coming from Nangloi to Delhi Sarai Rohilla, he would come by bus and would spend Rs.l5/- as bus fare, whereas at the time of return to Nangloi, he would take a train and would spend Rs.10/- as railway fare. When it was pointed out pointed out to him that this way, he (applicant) was spending Rs.25/- per day for his commuting, which would cost Rs.650/- in a month for 26 days travel, as against a Monthly Season Ticket (MST) of the railway, which would cost only Rs.100/- per month, the applicant deposed that till July, he used to travel on MST, but was not able to renew his MST due to paucity of time. This contention,of the applicant does not appear quite truthful since according to his own admission, he would come for work only 6 days in a week and surely can take time out on the 7th day for getting his MST renewed. He further mentioned that his salary was Rs.8,000/- per month and on the day of incident, a cash of Rs.515/- was taken out by the doctor in the hospital from the pocket of his pant. He explained that Rs.500/- was taken by him from his employer. He further said that the amount, which was taken by the doctor from the pocket of his pant, was not given to his relations any time thereafter. However, a perusal of the D.D.N0.17B (Ex.A-2), recorded by Hd. Constable Shri Ramesh Chand, clearly mentions that this amount was returned to his mother. The testimony of the witness is considered not very reliable. His other assertions, therefore, also cannot be truly relied upon.
2. No journey ticket was recovered by the doctor in Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi, alongwith the cash of Rs.515/-. The explanation of the applicant for this was that the journey ticket was kept by him in the front pocket of his shirt, whereas the money was in the pocket of his pant. He further stated that the front pocket of his shirt was torn at the time of his fall, which caused the ticket to be lost. He was shown the photograph, which he had filed as a proof of amputation of his right leg. In that photograph, the shirt, which he was wearing, does not have a front pocket. Likewise on the day of cross-examination, the shirt, which he was wearing, also did not have a front pocket. It was, therefore, mentioned to him that the shirt worn by him generally did not have the front pocket. He did not respond to this. His explanation of the ticket being lost, due to tearing of the shirt pocket is not seen to be having much force. The alleged incident happened within few minutes of his alleged boarding of the train. The ticket, if bought, would surely have been kept by him safely alongwith money in the pocket of his pant. When the money could be recovered from the pocket of the pant in the hospital, the ticket alone cannot get selectively lost. I, therefore, infer that no journey ticket was bought by the applicant before his alleged boarding of the train. In the absence of the journey ticket, he cannot be assigned the status of a bonafide passenger of the train. Issue No.l is answered accordingly against the applicant. (2) Whether the applicant sustained injuries in an untoward incident, as alleged in the claim application? If so, to what extent?
3. Nobody saw the applicant falling from the train and no information was available with the railway authorities, although the incident is said to have happened very near to Delhi Sarai Rohilla Railway Station. As such, there is no cogent and concrete evidence to believe that the incident of fall from the train did happen and that the injuries suffered by the applicant arose as a result of any fall from the train, which is covered under the definition of “untoward incident” as defined under the Railways Act, 1989. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly against the applicant.”
8. On a careful perusal of the aforesaid reasoning, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned judgment dated 17.07.2018 cannot be sustained in law. The reasons are not far to seek. It was uncontroverted testimony of AW-1 that he was a daily commuter between Nangloi and Sarai Rohilla, both located in Delhi and used to do Tailoring work in a shop located near Delhi Sarai Rohilla. He had been commuting for a year prior to the incident and testified that he used to come from Nangloi to Delhi Sarai Rohilla by bus and used to spent Rs.15/- on bus fare and used to return to Nangloi after taking train and was spending Rs.10/- as railway fare.
9. On being questioned by the learned Tribunal, he clarified that he had also availed a MST[3] which would cost him about Rs. 100/- per month and which was valid till 1st August, 2017 but since he could not get any time due to hard labour hours, he was not able to subscribe to the same. He categorically deposed that he had purchased a ticket for Rs. 10/- which he had kept in the front pocket of his shirt but it was lost during the accident. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal that in the photograph placed on the record by the appellant, he was wearing a shirt without any front pocket, is unconscionable and perverse. It is not the case of anyone that the same shirt was being worn by the appellant at the time of accident. The photograph that was referred to about was taken much after the incident had occurred and amputation had been suffered by the appellant, and it appears to have been filed along with the claim petition. It was quite probable that in the process of falling out from the Train and suffering injuries, the ticket was lost, and therefore, the finding record by the learned Tribunal that the appellant was not a bonafide passenger cannot be sustained in law.
10. Insofar as the issue of appellant himself being negligent is concerned, even the said aspect must also be rejected. It is the categorical testimony of the appellant that he was travelling by train and he fell out due to some commotion amongst the crowd. It is reasonable to assume that it was evening rush hours and the train was crowded and the appellant accidentally fell outside the running train which is the clear case of the appellant being involved in an “untoward incident”4. No criminal
3 Monthly Season Ticket 4 123. (c) (2) “untoward incident” means— the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. negligence can be attributed to the appellant in order to bring the case within the exception provided under Section 124A of the Railways Act. There is no iota of evidence that the appellant was guilty of any kind of contributory negligence either.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present appeal is allowed and the appellant is made entitled for statutory compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Only), which shall be payable to the appellant with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of incident till realization.
12. The present appeal stands disposed of.
DHARMESH SHARMA, J. APRIL 28, 2025