SMT. Murti Devi & Ors. v. Union of India

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. The challenge by means of this First Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is to the impugned order dated 30.11.2009 which dismissed the Claim Petition of the appellants/claimants.

2. The facts of the case are that the claimants filed a Claim Petition on the ground that one Sh. Sita Ram died in an untoward incident on 14.2.2008 while travelling from Kishanganj to Dayabasti, New Delhi in the train Kalindi Express inasmuch as the train while changing tracks 2011:DHC:4142 jerked violently which resulted in the deceased’s falling down from the train at Dayabasti Railway station.

3. The Tribunal has dismissed the Claim Petition on the following grounds:i) It is improbable that the deceased would want to travel by train between two points of travel which are barely 1/1.[5] kilometers, when there are more than enough bus services running between these two points. ii) Further, there was no question of boarding a long distance train Kalindi Express for travel of about just 1/1.[5] kilometers. iii) Further, even the so-called train ticket was not filed on record and proved. iv) The deceased was in fact a resident of a Jhuggi in Dayabasti and possibly while crossing from the tracks he has died in this very area as the very first message, Ex.AW1/5, only stated that a man was hit by a train.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued before me that the Railway Claims Tribunal has committed an illegality in overlooking the evidence of one Sh. Tribhuvan Ram who is stated to be an eyewitness and who was also a resident of a jhuggi where the deceased used to stay. It is also argued that the Railway Claims Tribunal has overlooked the evidence of another witness Sh. Suraj Kumar Bharti, who deposed that the deceased had purchased the ticket in his presence. It is therefore argued that once there is an evidence of an eyewitness not only of the falling from the train but also with respect to the purchase of ticket, it should be held that the claimants were entitled to compensation because there was an untoward incident and death due to falling from the train of late Sh.Sita Ram.

5. A civil case is decided on the balance of probabilities. There are always evidences for and against the contesting parties in a Court. A Court weighs all the evidences and on balancing the same, finds that on probabilities a particular view should or should not be taken. Unless such view is totally illegal or perverse, an Appellate Court would prefer not to interfere. In the present case, the following circumstances persuade me not to interfere with the decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal: i) It is improbable that for a distance of 1/1.[5] kilometers, a person would prefer to travel by a train instead of regular buses which were admittedly available between two points of travel. ii) The deceased was in fact a resident of Dayabasti, nearby where he is stated to have died, and as per the death summary report by head injury of a blunt object. On a balance of probabilities, it appears that the deceased was in fact moving around the railway tracks in and around the place of his residence and unfortunately met with death on account of being hit by the train. iii) The very first message, Ex.AW1/5, is only a message of a person being hit by a train. iv) No train ticket has been found, and therefore it can be said that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. There is no Jama Talalshi report of a ticket being recovered from the deceased. Of course, in many cases as per its peculiar facts where death takes place, a ticket may not be recovered, but in the present case it is improbable that a ticket would not have been recovered if there was indeed purchased a ticket for the travel inasmuch as there was an eye witness Sh. Tribhuvan Ram who was a neighbor and who immediately reached the spot after the accident, because he states that when he came out of his jhuggi, he saw that the deceased fell down from the train. To the aforesaid facts, I must add that the widow of the deceased Smt. Murti Devi, who deposed as AW1/1, has given her residential address in her affidavit of evidence as District Azamgarh, U.P, and has not given the address of Dayabasti and it has now come on record that the deceased was a resident of Dayabasti Jhuggi colony and which was nearby the site of the accident.

6. I am finding these days a spate of cases, which may not fall within the purview of Section 340 Cr.P.C, but quite clearly, these cases are false cases. Though, there is an unfortunate event of death, however, it appears that certain sections of community, and I would prefer not to elaborate further, are causing the filing of false complaints before the Railway Claims Tribunal inasmuch as comparatively a huge amount of Rs.4,00,000/- is given in case of the death of the deceased. Though, counsel for the respondent articulated that one does not even know how cases are financed, I would prefer not to go into this aspect. While therefore dismissing this appeal, I would like to send a copy of this order to the appropriate authorities of the respondent, who of course are not to use this order in genuine cases where compensation has to be paid, but this order on being brought to the notice of the necessary authorities within the railways, are directed to take notice of baseless and false claims which are being filed under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and take all such necessary steps to bring to the notice of its appropriate staff this issue, especially to the Railway Police who should conduct exhaustive search and enquiry, and use correct expressions in reports which are prepared so that the same can give a correct and complete picture to the Railway Claims Tribunals before which the cases come up.

7. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is dismissed. The counsel for the respondent to give a copy of this judgment for circulation and necessary action to the respondent.

AUGUST 12, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ak