Komal Singh & Anr. v. Union of India

1. In this appeal on the last date of hearing adjournment was sought on behalf of the appellants, and which was granted subject to deposit of costs of Rs.1000/- with the Delhi High Court Legal Aid Services Committee. Neither costs have been deposited nor is anyone present for the appellants.

2. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 19.7.2011 by which the Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition by holding that there was no untoward incident as per the meaning of that expression in Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 2014:DHC:1086 1989 causing the death of the boy Sh. Veerpal, son of the appellants, on 19.2.2009, and that in fact the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, he did not fall out of the train, and that he died at the time of crossing the railway tracks.

3. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in this regard are contained in the following findings/conclusions of the Tribunal in the judgment dated 19.7.2011 and the same are as follows:- “Hence, it is clear that the applicants miserably failed to prove the untoward incident & the documents placed on record on behalf of the applicants do not prove the untoward incident. The alleged eye witness AW[2] Sh. Dharender is not a reliable trustworthy witness because AW[2], in his cross examination admitted that the deceased was not known to him and the ticket for his journey on 19.2.2009 was not available with him as the same was taken by the TTE in the Police Chowki, when he went to the police station for giving information to the police. But no such information of Sh. Dharender, was available on the police record & there was also no reference of the aforesaid witness in the police investigation. The statement of eyewitness Const. Sehdev Singh, RPF Hazrat Nizamuddin was recovered by the police during investigation, wherein it is mentioned that a boy, while crossing the railway track at about 4 p.m on 19.02.2009 from platform no.2, was run over by EMU train and the duty hours of const. Sehdev Singh was from 8 AM to 8 PM on 19.2.2009 at the platform and the above statement, recorded by the police was not rebutted/challenged by the applicants, when copy of DRM report alongwith other documents, including the statement of Const. Sehdev Singh were supplied to the ld. Counsel for the applicants. These documents were prepared in the ordinary course of duties by the Govt. officials and the veracity of the documents, cannot be doubted. Hence, it is clear that the alleged incident occurred, while the deceased was crossing the railway track from plaintiff no.2 at about 4 PM on 19.2.2009 & he was run over by EMU train and the present case falls under the exceptions of section 124- A of the Railway Act and for that Railway Administration is not responsible. I also observe that no journey ticket was recovered either from the possession of the deceased or from the site of the incident and in this regard I find momentum of force when the Ld. Counsel for the respondent states that the story put forth by the applicants, is a mere concoction only to get false compensation and now a days, it is a simple tendency of the some people by adopting other means by quoting that the deceased was travelling, on the strength of valid railway journey ticket and the ticket lost in the incident. However, the legal position of law is very much clear as it has been held in Dinesh Kumar Singh Maurya Vs Union of India, vide FAO no.1023 of 2010, decided on 28.8.2010 by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), wherein it is observed as under:- “True, may be in certain cases the ticket of bonafide passenger is lost, snatched or taken away by some criminal and unscrupulous persons but there cannot be a presumption that the ticket of every deceased necessarily is taken out or it is lost or mutilated. In case ticket is not found from the body of the deceased or form its vicinity, the presumption would be that such a person was not a bonafide traveller, of course, evidence can be led to prove otherwise. If any untoward incident takes place within the meaning of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, initial burden lies on the Railways to prove that the passenger was not a bonafide passenger, but the same having been discharged, onus shifts on the person claiming compensation, to establish by some believable evidence, that such a passenger was a bonafide passenger, moreso when contrary admissible evidence is produced by the Railways.” The authority titled (supra) is applicable in the present case. I find momentum of force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the respondent and there is no modicum of merit in the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the applicants. The authorities submitted by Ld. Counsel for the applicants, is not applicable in the present case as the facts are different. Hence, I record my findings on Issue no.1 & 2 against the applicants and in favour of the respondent.”

4. The Railway Claims Tribunal has rightly held that in none of the documents which were filed and proved on record it was shown that the deceased died on account of a fall from the train. In fact, the statement of Sehdev Singh, the railway police constable at Hazrat Nizamuddin was recorded and which showed that the deceased died while crossing the railways tracks. Admittedly, no ticket was recovered in Jamatalashi/search of the deceased. Railway Claims Tribunal has held that the official acts which are performed by government servants have a presumption of correctness and which would be so in terms of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The official acts have therefore to be believed in the facts of the present case. I completely agree with the findings and conclusions of the Railway Claims Tribunal which in fact notes that there is a tendency now a days by putting forth a concocting story for getting the statutory compensation of Rs. 4 lacs.

5. In view of the above, though the appeal is dismissed, considering that the process of law has been misused in this case, I fix the case before the against the appellants as also any other co-conspirators or abetors who can be said to be guilty as per criminal laws, in filing of the false case before this Court including filing of false affidavits and also of filing of the false cases before the Tribunal and leading false evidence and filing false affidavits before the Railway Claims Tribunal. The Registrar General after completing the necessary enquiry within a period of four months will give a report to this Court and list the matter in Court.

6. List before the Registrar General on 18th March, 2014. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal so that the same is prominently displayed in different notice boards of the Railway Claims Tribunal for the next six months so that hopefully the frivolous and false cases are not filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal.

FEBRUARY 26, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib