Smt. Pinki & Ors. 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 18.11.2022 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(U)/DLI/120/2020, titled as “Smt. Pinki&Ors. vs. Union of India”.

2. The clam application came to be instituted in the context of the death of oneRinku Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”), who, on 07.03.2019, on the strength of a second-class journey ticket, was travelling from Ghaziabad to SadarBazar. As further stated by the appellants, due to heavy rush inside the compartment and a sudden jerk, the deceased lost his balance and accidentally fell from the running trainsustaining fatal injuries.

3. The claimants have relied upon the journey ticket recovered from the person of the deceased, the panchnama, post-mortem report, death certificate and other railway and police record. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants submits that during the proceedings before the Tribunal, the journey ticket recovered from the deceased was also sent for verification by the respondent. The office of the Chief Commercial Manager, Northern Railway confirmed that Ticket No. UAC-81812401 had in fact been issued on 07.03.2019 at 18:28 hours from Ghaziabad Railway Station for travel up to Sadar Bazar. It is further submitted that there is no direct evidence whatsoever to establish that the deceased was crossing the railway track.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the position in which the body was found and the injuries noticed during the post-mortem clearly indicate that the deceased was run over while crossing the railway track. Learned counsel submits that merely because a journey ticket was recovered from the deceased would not, by itself, establish that the death had occurred on account of an accidental fall from a passenger train.Reliance was placed upon the DRM inquiry and other inquiry proceedings to contend that the injuries sustained by the deceased were consistent with a run-over case and it was, therefore, pleaded that the incident did not fall within the definition of an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

5. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal noticed that a railway ticket had indeed been recovered and that the same stood verified from the railway records. Nevertheless, the Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the claim by observing that the place where the body was found, coupled with the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, indicated that he had been run over by a goods train while crossing the railway track. The Tribunal further observed that once it concluded that the incident was not an “untoward incident”, the question whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger lost significance.

6. This Court has considered the submissions addressed by the learned counsels for the parties and has carefully perused the entire record.

7. Before examining whether the death of the deceased resulted from an “untoward incident”, this Court considers it appropriate to first determine whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The Tribunal, after recording that the journey ticket recovered from the deceased was genuine, observed that the said aspect became inconsequential once it concluded that the incident was not an untoward incident. In the opinion of this Court, such an approach cannot be said to sustainable in legal parlance.

8. The respondent itself sought verification of the said ticket during the proceedings before the Tribunal. Pursuant thereto, the office of the Chief Commercial Manager, Northern Railway furnished a communication confirming that Ticket No. UAC-81812401 had been issued from Ghaziabad to Sadar Bazar on 07.03.2019at 18:28 hours for one adult passenger. Thus, the authenticity of the journey ticket does not remain in dispute as its genuineness stands verified from the official records maintained by the Railways itself.

9. Apart from the verified journey ticket, the evidence led by the appellants also supports the case that the deceased had commenced the railway journey. AW-1, Smt. Pinki, the wife of the deceased, categorically deposed that on the date of the incident, the deceased had left home to purchase goods from Sadar Bazar, Delhi and had travelled by an EMU train after purchasing the requisite railway ticket. She further deposed that after the incident, she came to know that the railway ticket had been recovered from the pocket of the deceased during the proceedings conducted by the authorities. Nothing material could be elicited in her cross-examination to discredit her testimony on this aspect.

10. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi[1] has held that mere non-recovery of a railway ticket cannot, by itself, defeat a claim if the claimants are able to discharge the initial burden by leading cogent evidence. In the present case, the evidence stands on an even stronger footing. It is not a case where the appellants seek to establish railway travel solely through oral evidence despite non-recovery of a ticket. Here, the journey ticket was in fact recovered from the deceased and its genuineness was independently verified by the respondent itself. Consequently, the initial burden cast upon the appellants stands fully discharged.

11. This Court has also taken a similar view in its decision in Dharamawati v. Union of India[2] and Mahendra v. Union of India[3] wherein it was reiterated that the contemporaneous railway record and other surrounding circumstances have to be appreciated in their entirety while determining whether the claimant was travelling as a bona fide passenger and that isolated circumstances cannot be picked up to discard an otherwise consistent case.

12. This Court is, therefore, satisfied that the appellants have successfully established that the deceased was travelling on the strength of a valid railway journey ticket issued from Ghaziabad to Sadar Bazar on the date of the occurrence. Accordingly, it is held that the deceased was a bonafidepassenger within the meaning of the Act.

13. Having held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, the next question that arises for consideration is whether the record establishes that his death occurred in an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Act.

14. The Tribunal answered the aforesaid issue against the appellants primarily on two circumstances, namely, that the body of the deceased was found on Coaching Line No.2 and that the injuries noticed during the postmortem suggested a run-over case. Proceeding on that basis, the Tribunal concluded that the deceased must have been crossing the railway track and was run over by a goods train.

15. It is well settled that findings in proceedings of this nature must rest on evidence and not on assumptions. In the present case, there is no eyewitness who has stated that the deceased was crossing the railway track, or no railway official has deposed that he saw the deceased walking on the track. Neither the Station Master’s memo nor the panchnama records that the deceased was attempting to cross the railway line. The contemporaneous record, thus, does not support the inference drawn by the Tribunal.