Manglu Ghosh & Anr. v. Union of India GM Northern Railway

1. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated 29.7.2011 by which the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants/parents of the deceased Prashanta Ghosh was dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are that the deceased Prashanta Ghosh, a resident of West Bengal was travelling from Malda Town to Delhi on 26.6.2007 after purchasing a railway journey ticket bearing no.20992056. Deceased Prashanta Ghosh boarded the train no. 3483 Up Farakha Express 2014:DHC:2043 from Malda Town to Delhi on 26.6.2007. When the train reached near Dabar Railway Station, and which is near Bulandshehar; UP, at about 12.45 at night, the deceased Prashanta Ghosh accidently fell down from the train on account of sudden jerk/jolt in the train, and this accident resulted in his death. The matter was reported to the police who lodged the DD No.45 dated 28.6.2007. The subject claim petition was thereafter filed by the appellants/petitioners.

3. The Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition although the original journey ticket was filed and proved as Ex.AW1/9 on the ground that there is a contradiction in the deposition of the father who appeared as AW-1 that whereas in the claim petition it was mentioned that the ticket was with the police, in the cross-examination it was stated that the ticket was given to him by his brother. The Railway Claims Tribunal has accordingly held that since there was no recovery of the ticket from the person of the deceased in the jamatalashi/panchnama Ex. AW1/7, the deceased cannot be said to have been a bona fide passenger.

4. The judgment of the Tribunal in my opinion is quite clearly illegal. It is to be noted that liability of the Railways is indubitably a strict liability as per Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and so held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 527 and Jameela and Ors. Vs. Union of India (2010) 12 SCC 443.The judgments of the Supreme Court clarify that the liability is fastened on the Railways even assuming there is negligence of the bona fide passenger. I may note that the body of the deceased was found hundreds of kilometers from the point of beginning of the journey i.e somewhere near Bulandsheher, UP inasmuch as the journey commenced at Malda in West Bengal and clearly therefore if the body of the deceased was found lying on the tracks, it could only be if the deceased had fallen down from the train. I may note that the railways admittedly led no evidence whatsoever before the Tribunal, and therefore, this is an important aspect for this Court to hold that the death of Prashanta Ghosh took place in an untoward incident as per the meaning of the expression in Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

5. In my opinion, too much has been made out by the Tribunal of an alleged contradiction of the ticket having been stated in the claim petition to be with the police but in the cross-examination to have been received by the father AW-1 from his brother. This finding is an incorrect finding on account of lack of appreciation of the documents filed before the Tribunal because before the Tribunal appellants filed the document Ex.AW1/5 and which shows that the brother of AW-1 i.e brother of the father of the deceased namely Pandav Ghosh was the person who had gone to the accident site and had identified the body and he interacted with the police. Therefore, it is the brother Sh. Pandav Ghosh, who would have received the luggage of the deceased Prashanta Ghosh from the police, and in which luggage the ticket was found. Therefore really there is no contradiction as has been found by the Tribunal but really it is lack of appropriate reading of evidence on behalf of the Tribunal for incorrectly holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger although a valid journey ticket has in fact been filed and proved before the Tribunal.

6. In view of the above, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. Appellants will be entitled to statutory compensation of Rs.[4] lacs in equal proportion. Appellants will also be entitled to interest at 7 ½ % per annum simple from the date of filing of the petition before the Tribunal till the date of payment. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

APRIL 17, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib