Veena Rani v. Union of India

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 19.1.2011 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in OA 187/2010 dismissing the claim of the appellant on account of the death of her son.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 13.5.2010, one Sumit (since deceased) was alleged to have been travelling from Okhla to Faridabad in EMU train and when the train reached near Hazrat Nizamuddin railway station, the deceased Sumit fell from the compartment of the train on account of sudden jerk in the train as a 2013:DHC:1880 consequence of which, he died on the spot by coming under the train itself. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.[4] was claimed by the mother of the deceased.

3. The respondent contested the claim of the appellant. It was alleged that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor did he died in any untoward incident. On the pleadings of the parties, the following four issues were framed: “(i) Whether the applicants prove that they are the dependants of the deceased within the meaning of Section 123(b) of the Railways Act?

(ii) Whether the applicants further prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the train in question on the relevant day?

(iii) Whether the applicants also prove that the death of the deceased had occurred as a result of an untoward incident, as alleged in the claim application?

(iv) Whether the respondent proves that the claim is not covered under the ambit of Sections 123, 124 and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989?

(v) To what order/relief?

4. So far as issue no.1 is concerned, it was decided in favour of the appellant being the dependent on the deceased within the definition of Section 123 (b) of the Railways Act. However, with regard to issue nos.[2] to 4, are concerned, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the factum of death. It was observed that neither the ticket was found from the deceased nor did the police record showed that he had been hit by the train.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant who has taken the Court through the report and documents purported to have been prepared by the police where it was nowhere stated in those documents that the appellant was hit by the train.

6. I have carefully considered the submission made by the appellant and gone through the record.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that before a person is entitled to a claim under the Act, it must be established by preponderance of probabilities that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. In the instant case same has not been proved. Simply by saying that the appellant’s ticket was lost or that he had purportedly purchased the ticket is not good enough.

8. In the instant case, the dead body of the deceased was found with a broken mobile in his pocket. In addition to this, there were some other documents but no ticket was found from the possession of the deceased. Therefore, it is totally unbelievable that ticket would not have been found with the deceased, if he would have purchased one. In the absence of the ticket, it cannot be assumed on the basis of the statement of one Manish whose statement has been recorded by the police, who has stated that it was he who left the deceased at the railway station and he had seen him purchasing the ticket. The evidence which can be taken cognizance of is the one which is made by a person before the Tribunal on oath or filed by way of an affidavit EX-AW1/7. Statement purported to have been made by Manish is before the police, which is a statement u/S 161 Cr.P.C. No credence can be attached to such a statement purported to have been recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. If Manish had really seen the accident and was known to the deceased, the minimum which was expected from the appellant was to procure the attendance of Manish and make him testify before the Tribunal that the deceased had admittedly purchased the ticket.

9. So far as the document Ex.AW1/4 and Ex.AW1/5 are concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that in these documents, it has been mentioned that the appellant might have fallen from the compartment of a running train. The fact that the police record shows that the deceased might have fallen from the running train is not good enough to be established before the Court so as to warrant the demand of compensation to the appellant. What is required in law to be proved is that he had actually fallen from the train and suffered injuries apart from the fact that he was a bona fide passenger. On both these counts, the appellant’s case falls short. There is no infirmity in the judgment of the tribunal in dismissing the claim of the appellant on the ground that neither the appellant has been able to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger nor it has been able to prove that he had died on account of some untoward incident. Accordingly, the appeal does not have any merit and the same is dismissed. V.K. SHALI, J. APRIL 12, 2013