Kamal Kishore & Anr. v. Union of India

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 14.10.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafterreferred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(u)/ GZB/240/2017, titled as “Sh. Kamal Kishore & Another vs. Union of India”.

2. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the claim application, are that on the intervening night of 18/19.05.2016, one Sh. AmitPanchal (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) was travelling from Saharanpur to Modi Nagar by Train no. 18238(Amritsar-BilaspurChhattisgarh Express) on the strength of a valid second-class journey ticket. It was the case of the appellants that when the said train was approaching ModiNagar Railway Station, the deceased accidentally fell from the running train, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.

3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed by the appellants herein on the ground that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor did the alleged incident qualify as an “untoward incident” as defined under the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

4. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the impugned judgment contending that the deceased had undertaken a lawful journey on the strength of a valid journey ticket, which was lost at the time of the accident. It was further contended that the deceased, owing to the jostling inside the compartment, accidentally fell from the running train and thus, the case squarely falls within the scope of an “untoward incident”. Further, reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi[1] to contend that the mere non-recovery of the journey ticket cannot be determinative of the deceased’s status asa bona fide passenger.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim in view of the material on record. It was contended that the body of the deceased was discovered at 06.00 hrs., whereas Amritsar-Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Express Train had reached at ModiNagar Station at 03.02 hrs. on the date of incident, indicating that the deceased was run over in the morning and did not accidentally fall from a running train. The respondentfurthercontended that if the deceased, in fact, had an accidental fall, either of the loco pilots of thethree trains crossing the place of incident between 03.02 hrs and 06.00 hrs. would have reported the body. Furthermore, the respondentsubmitted that since the location of the incident and the residence of the deceased are only about 2 kms. away from each other, it is not unlikely that he was trespassing in the area.

6. This Court has heard the arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties and has perused the material on record.

7. In the backdrop of the above facts, the two issues that arise for consideration before this Court are whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger and whether the injuries sustained by the deceased were on account of an “untoward incident” as defined underthe Act.

8. Insofar as the issue of bona fide travel is concerned,it is an admitted fact that no ticket was recovered and no evidence was placed on record regarding purchase of the same. However, as per “Union of India vs. Rina Devi”2, it is settled law that a merenon-recovery of a ticket cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive.

9. A gainful reference, in this regard, may be made to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in “Lata vs. Union of India[3] ”, a relevant extract whereof is reproduced hereunder:

10. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, AW- 1 has successfully discharged the initial burden by way of an affidavit and categoricallystating therein that the deceased had purchased a valid second class journey ticket from Saharanpur to Modi Nagar by Amritsar- BilaspurChhattisgarh Express Train. The Tribunal has discarded the testimony of AW-1 principally on the ground that it is not credible as he was not an eyewitness to the alleged incident. However, AW-1 never claimed to have witnessed either the purchase of the ticket or the occurrence of the incident. His evidence was confined to the facts within his knowledge, namely that the deceased had undertaken the journey on the strength of a valid journey ticket, which, according to the claim application, was lost in the accident. In view of the law laid down in Rina Devi(supra) and reiterated in Lata (supra), the initial burden stood duly discharged by the appellants. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, thisCourt is of the view that in the absence of any cogent material to rebut the said evidence, the testimony of AW-1 cannot be discarded and the Tribunal erred in denying the deceased the status of a bona fide passenger.

11. The next issue that arises for consideration is whether the deceased died in an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Act.The Tribunal has held against the appellants principally on the ground that the body of the deceased remained unnoticed for several hours and, therefore, the case of accidental fall is improbable. The incident is stated to have occurred during the early morning hours and the body remainingunnoticed by theloco pilots of three trains passing between 03.02 hrs and 06.00 hrs. cannot, by itself, negate the occurrence of an accidental fall.

12. A reference in this regard, may alsobe made to the decision of “Sh. Surendra Prasad Verma vs. Union of India”4, wherein it has been held that mere delay in the recovery or discovery of the body cannot, by itself, be a determinative factor to disbelieve the case of accidental fall, particularly in the absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary. In the present case as well, except for drawing an inference from time at which the body was noticed, no material has been brought on record by the respondent to establish that the deceased was run over while trespassing on the railway track.

13. Applying the said principle to the facts of the present case, the mere fact that the body was noticed after some time cannot lead to an adverse inference against the claimant or discredit the appellant’s version. Therefore, the said incident squarely falls within the scope of an “untoward incident” under the Act.