Pushpa Mishra v. Union of India

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant in terms of Section 23 of The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987[1] assailing the impugned order dated 05.12.2016 passed by the Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi[2], whereby the claim application bearing No. OA 267/2015[3], filed under section 13 of the RCT Act was dismissed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the appellant, claimant that on 17.05.2014, her son Navneet Mishra S/o Late Sh. Avdhesh Mishra was traveling in 14257 Kashi Viswanth Express train from Bareily Railway Station to New Delhi on a valid Second class Ticket bearing no. 37038642-43 along with his companion; and that the train was 1 RCT Act 2 RCT overcrowded with passengers; that when the train was passing through the area of P.S. Naugawan Sadat, UP, all of a sudden the train took a strong jerk causing a massive jolt as a result of which the deceased, who was standing near the gate inside the compartment, fell down from the running train and died on the spot. She filed a claim petition on 08.09.2015 seeking statutory compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest.

3. The respondent Railways contested the claim petition primarily on the ground that the deceased was not holding a valid rail ticket, which although issued on 16.05.14, was valid for only for 17.05.14; and the deceased died due to his own negligence and there was no fault on part of the Railways in the said incident.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE RCT AND IMPUGNED ORDER:

4. The record shows that Learned RCT framed the following issues for consideration:

5. Learned RCT vide impugned order held that the ticket was issued on 16.05.14 which was valid for 17.05.14, but the schedule departure time of the train was in the midnight of intervening time i.e., 17th &18th May, 2014 at 12:05Hours. The tribunal was of the view that the ticket purchased by the deceased was valid for 17th May, 2014 Claim application and not for 18th May, 2014; and thus, the tribunal arrived at a conclusion that although the rail ticket was recovered from the deceased, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as per Section 2(29) of the RCT. Accordingly, holding that issues no. 1 & 2 against the claimant, the claim petition was dismissed impugned judgment dated 05.12.2015. Hence, this appeal.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION:

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the record, this Court finds that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in law. It would be expedient to re-produce the reasons given by the learned RCT while deciding issues no. 1 & 2, which read as under: “Issue No.1 There are no two opinions about the fact that a ticket had been said to be recovered from the body of the deceased. The expression passenger under s 2(29) of the Railways Act employs the expression valid pass or ticket. The validity must attach to the ticket by the fact of issue by railways and the ability to use it for travel in a train. Liberal use of this expression through judgments to include situations of a person getting into a wrong train and coming by injuries are Justified by application of the first rule of genuineness of issue and stretching the second requirement to accommodate an intention to travel by a train which the ticket authorises a passenger to travel with but wrongly used for a different train. Hence at the time of injury, the ticket must be current in the sense that the ticket could have been used on the day when the accident had occurred. In none of the citations made do we confront such a situation. I have extracted the propositions made in each of the decisions and in no case was a situation when the ticket was not current and could not have been used for travel. In the present case, the ticket purchased in advance on 16.5.2014 specifically made reference to the fact that it was for journey on 17.5.2014. It could have been used for travel that commenced on 18.5.2014. It was not a case of the train arriving late. It was a train that was scheduled to arrive and depart only on 18th just past midnight. The validity of the ticket takes a beating in both the sense of the term that I have explained at the outset and even an expansive interpretation cannot allow for the situation to admit the person to a character as a passenger with a valid ticket. It is not possible to bury the term „valid' occurring in the statute as a populist measure. It is for the legislative to intervene and make it irrelevant. I am afraid, I can not judicially declare so. I hold under the circumstances that the deceased was not a passenger as defined under the Act. Issue No.2 It is a case of injuries suffered due to a railway accident. Having regard to the nature of injuries, even if there is no direct evidence by the fall, I shall assume this to be a fall and hence an untoward incident.”

7. First things first, there is no dispute that the appellant was held to be the mother of the deceased on the basis of the Voter ID Card (Ex.A[7]) and Ration Card (Ex.A[6]), and therefore, entitled to institute and claim compensation. Secondly, there is no challenge to the findings recorded by learned RCT that the deceased suffered injuries as a consequence of railway accident and consequently died in an „untoward incident‟, as defined under section 2 (n) read with clause

(c) of Section 123 of The Act[4].

8. This brings us to issue as to whether the deceased was a „bonafide passenger‟ as per section 2(29) of the Act[5]. Evidently, the deceased had been found to be having a valid rail ticket for 17.05.2014 and he was travelling by Kashi Viswanth Express train from Bareily Railway Station to New Delhi. It is borne out from the record that the DRM report itself stated that the deceased had a valid ticket. Further, the GRP (Government Railway Police) report also 4 “untoward incident” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (c )of Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989). 5 “passenger” means a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket; clearly stated that the deceased had fallen down from the moving train with a valid ticket and consequently died.

9. The evidence brought on the record clearly bring out that on 17.05.14, there was no other train for New Delhi except Kashi Vishwanath Express before 12:00AM, and therefore, in all probabilities the deceased was constrained to board the train at 12:40AM. There was led no evidence before the RCT that the schedule departure of the train was at 12:05 hours. There was neither any material placed on the record by the Railways nor there was raised any query by learned RCT so as to arrive at a finding that the train was not running late, and therefore, the deceased could not have boarded the train. There is no case of the respondent that that deceased was not entitled to board an Express or Superfast train either. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned RCT that the deceased was not having a valid rail ticket is patently perverse and can not be sustained in law. Reference can be invited to decision in Union of India v. Radha Devi 6 where it was held that “where the deceased in fact had purchased a railway ticket and was travelling as per the railway ticket, that makes him a bonafide passenger”. In another case Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar,7, it was held that “In our opinion, the expression „accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers‟ includes accidents when a bona fide passenger, i.e., a passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train and falls down during the process. In other words, a purposive, and not literal, interpretation should be given to the expression.”

10. In another case, K. Vidya Kumari vs. Union of India[8] it was held that: “The court held that “a passenger who had a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers and when section 124-A does not clarify that the passenger must possess a valid ticket for the same train from which he had an accidental fall, the passenger has to be treated as a bona fide passenger. The court further held that if a passenger has purchased a valid ticket for travelling in a train carrying passengers and even a person who possesses a valid platform ticket is covered by the definition of bona fide passenger and when he becomes a victim of an untoward incident, then he is entitled for compensation”. Therefore, as per the above judgment, a person who possesses a platform ticket is also entitled for compensation and possession of a valid ticket for a particular train is immaterial.”