Sh. Kamal Sharma and 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 dated03.03.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. 57/2018 titled as “Sh. Kamal Sharma & Ors. vs. Union of India”.

2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that one Renu (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) along with her friend Aman Raza, was travelling from New Delhi to Agra Cantt on the strength of a valid journey ticket bearing No. 23848675.It was the appellants‟ case that after boarding the train from New Delhi, both of them were standing near the entrance of the compartment and, when the train reached between Ballabhgarh and Asaoti, the deceased as well as her abovenamed friend accidentally fell from the running train, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application holding that the appellants had failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger or that her death had resulted from an “untoward incident” as contemplated under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the claim petition despite the admitted recovery of a valid railway journey ticket bearing No. 23848675 from the person of the deceased, which was duly verified by the respondent itself. It is contended that the Tribunal denied the status of a bona fide passenger on the basis of the endorsement printed on the ticket regarding commencement of journey, while ignoring that the tickets recovered from the deceased and her companion were consecutive, issued simultaneously for the same destination and both deceased persons were found at the same place. It is further submitted that the official material placed on record, including the Station Master‟s memo, the statement of Keyman Dayaram, the inquest proceedings consistently support the case of an accidental fall from a running train.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that no eyewitness has been produced, no Guard or Loco Pilot reported any such incident and the DRM investigation revealed that the deceased was not travelling on the strength of the alleged journey ticket at the relevant time. It is further submitted that the ticket had been issued at 15:50 hours on 31.08.2017 with the endorsement “Commence journey within 3 hours or departure of first train”, whereas the body was noticed only on the following morning.

6. This Court has heard learned counsels appearing for both the parties and gone through the material placed on record.

7. At the outset, it may be noticed that the foundational facts regarding recovery of the railway journey ticket from the person of the deceased are not in dispute. The jamatalashi proceedings specifically record the recovery of one railway journey ticket No.23848675 from New Delhi to Agra Cantt. along with the Aadhaar Card of the deceased. The said ticket was subsequently verified by the respondent itself and was found to have been issued on 31.08.2017 at 15:50 hours from New Delhi Railway Station. The respondent has nowhere disputed either the recovery or the genuineness of the said ticket.

8. The Tribunal, however, proceeded to hold that the deceased was not travelling on the authority of the said ticket primarily on the ground that the ticket contained the endorsement “Commence journey within 3 hours or departure of first train”, whereas the dead body was first noticed at about 08:10 hours on the following morning.

9. In the opinion of this Court, apart from the aforesaid endorsement, the respondent has not produced any material to establish that the deceased had not boarded the train or that the recovered ticket had become invalid for the journey allegedly undertaken. No statement of any Loco Pilot or any other railway official has been brought on record in support of such conclusion. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in “Dwarika Mahto & Ors. v. Union of India[1] ”, wherein it was held that technical requirements relating to endorsement on a railway ticket cannot, by themselves, defeat a claim under the beneficial provisions of the Act once valid railway travel otherwise stands established. In the present case, the respondent has neither disputed the genuineness of the recovered ticket nor led any cogent evidence to establish that the ticket had become invalid or that the deceased had not undertaken the journey.

10. Once recovery and verification of a genuine railway journey ticket stood established and the attendant circumstances supported the case of railway travel, the initial burden cast upon the appellants stood duly discharged. In terms of the law laid down in “Union of India v. Rina Devi[2] ” as well as in the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in “Lata v. Union of India[3] ”, the burden thereafter shifted upon the respondent to establish circumstances disentitling the appellants from claiming compensation. Since no such evidence has been led, this Court is satisfied that the deceased was a bona fide passenger within the meaning of the Act.

11. Coming next to the manner of occurrence, the Station Master‟s memo records that information regarding one male and one female dead body lying near the Up Main Line between Ballabhgarh and Asaoti was received from Keyman Dayaram during routine patrolling. Acting upon the said information, the railway authorities informed the GRP, whereafter the statutory proceedings commenced. Significantly, the earliest railway record does not attribute the occurrence either to trespassing, track crossing or suicide.The inquest proceedings were conducted treating the occurrence as a (2013) ACJ 768

“railway accident”. Thus, the contemporaneous railwayrecords do not support the case subsequently put forth in the DRM report that the deceased had died in some other manner.

12. Much emphasis was laid by the respondent on the circumstance that the two dead bodies were first noticed only during routine patrolling on the following morning. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said circumstance, by itself, cannot be determinative of the manner of occurrence.A gainful reference in this regard, may be 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. Applying the said principle to the facts of the present case, the mere fact that the bodies were first noticed by the Keyman during morning patrolling cannot negate the appellants‟ case of accidental fall from a running train.

13. The respondent also did not examine any Guard, Loco Pilot, Ticket Examiner or any other railway official having personal knowledge of the occurrence. No eyewitness has been produced to establish that the deceased was crossing the railway track or had committed suicide.

14. Tested on the aforesaid material, this Court is unable to concur with the findings returned by the Tribunal. Consequently, the death of the deceased is held to have occurred in an „untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act.