Santra v. Union of India

1. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment dated 6.8.2010 which has dismissed the claim petition of the appellant/plaintiff.

2. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition as there is a finding that the deceased Sh. Mahesh Chand committed suicide and did not fall from the train. The relevant observations of the Railway Claims Tribunal read as under: 2014:DHC:888 “Regarding Issue Nos. 2,[3] & 4 These issues are clubbed together for the sake of convenience, and also because they are inter-related. The applicant has stated that at the time of the accident Sh. Mahesh Chand was holding a second class monthly pass valid from Jautala to Palam for the period 14.7.08 to 13.8.08. The applicant has placed on record photocopies of these tickets, documents marked ‘A’ and ‘B’. The respondent has contested the genuineness of the photocopies of tickets placed on record but has been unable to produce any evidence to back this contention. Regarding the nature of the incident, the applicant has claimed that due to sudden jerk and heavy rush he fell from the train at Jataula station which was the point where he boarded 1 MNR. However, the respondent has produced and witness Sh. Jaideep, Sr. Guard who was the Guard (RW[1]) of 1 MNR train from Rewari to Delhi on the day in question. He has produced a very important record pertaining to the incident in question. There is a memo issued which individually states that the Driver of 1 MNR had informed the Guard on the Walkie Talkie that one person has come and lay down on the track resulting in his injury. The respondent has, therefore, argued that this is a clear case of suicide by run over and not the case fo untoward incident. The respondent has also argued that none of the police reports submitted by the applicant given an indication that Sh. Mahesh Chand had fallen from a train. In fact, the police report i.e Panchnama clearly states that his death was caused due to being hit by a train. It is very clear from the station records submitted by the Guard of the train on the fateful day that Sh. Mahesh Chand died due to a self inflicted injury by laying across the line in the fact of a moving train. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the respondent and against the applicant. Based on the record, it is apparent that Sh. Mahesh Chand’s death was due to run over and not due to an untoward incident. Hence, this application stands dismissed. In the resu8lt, therefore, the claim application filed by the applicant is dismissed. There are, however, no orders as to costs.” (underlining added)

3. I completely agree with the aforesaid observations inasmuch as the document R[1] filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal is a report of the same date of the incident i.e 14.7.2008 and as per the report R[1] the Driver of the train has reported that the deceased came and lay down on the track in front of the train and was run over.

4. I may state that under Section 114 of the Evidence Act,1872 there is a presumption as to official acts being properly performed and R[1] is a document of an official act of the Guard of the Railways stating that the deceased in fact came and lay down in front of the train as a result of which he was run over and, therefore, the present case is really a case of suicide and not of ‘untoward incident’ under Sections 123(c) and 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the deceased was found at the railway station and since a valid ticket was recovered from him, the death in question should be taken as an untoward incident under Sections 123(c) and 124A of the Railways Act. I cannot agree. No doubt, the deceased had a valid train ticket, however, that does not take away the factum of document R[1] prepared contemporaneously in which the Driver of the train informed to the Guard of the train that one person laid down on the track resulting in his death.

6. In view of the above, the appeal has no merit, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J FEBRUARY 17, 2014 godara