Union of India v. Bazar @ Istaq

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/Union of India under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987[1] assailing judgment dated 05.12.2016 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Railways Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi[2] whereby the claim petition of the applicant/respondent was allowed in OA (IIU) NO. 28/2016.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. Briefly stated, a claim petition was filed by the applicant, who is the respondent in the present appeal, claiming that on 12.02.2015 he was travelling in passenger Train 1-DJ from Ghevra to Rohtak Railway Station along with Ismil and two other persons on the RCT Act strength of valid second class ordinary tickets, when due to a sudden jerk/jolt and push/pull of the passengers, he fell down at Ghevra Station and came under the running train resulting in amputation of both his legs below the knee. It was claimed that some money, papers and tickets were kept in his shirt pocket, which were lost at the spot due to the accident.

3. The claim petition was contested by the Railways/Union of India inter alia defending the claim on the ground that the claimant was a not „bonafide passenger‟ as he was travelling without a valid rail ticket and that he attempted to board a running train and was therefore guilty of negligence in doing so.

IMPUGNED JUDGMENT:

4. On the issue of whether the applicant/respondent was a bonafide passenger, the learned RCT delivered a finding in favour of the applicant/respondent. With respect to Issue No. 2, which was framed as whether the injuries were sustained in an ‘untoward incident’, was also decided in favour of the applicant. Lastly, relying on the disability certificate Ex.A-8 by which it was found to be a case of bilateral amputation, Issue No.3 was also decided in favour of the applicant/respondent. Therefore, he was held to be entitled to the statutory amount of compensation. Learned RCT accordingly awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- in favour of the applicant/respondent with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment/realization.

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL:

5. The impugned judgment is assailed in the present appeal inter alia on the grounds that the learned RCT failed to appreciate that as per the evidence brought on the record, the applicant/respondent was trying to board a moving train along with a Dholak when he met with an accident, and thus, there was an act of contributory negligence on his part and lastly, no railway ticket was recovered from him, and therefore, the finding that that the applicant/respondent was a bonafide passenger was also erroneous in law.

6. On filing of the present appeal, operation of the impugned Judgment was put in abeyance vide order dated 09.05.2017. This Court also requisitioned the digitized copy of the Lower Court Record[3], which has been made available.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

7. None appeared for the appellant when the matter was called for final hearing. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant/respondent and on perusal of the record including the LCR, this Court proceeds to deliver the following judgment. It has been noted that learned counsels for the parties were given three weeks time to file written submissions, which have not been filed by either of the parties.

8. First things first, it is well settled that the RCT is not bound by the procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure Code and/or the Indian Evidence Act. The Tribunal in arriving at a decision is to be guided by the principles of natural justice. The substance of evidence led on the record would show that at the first possible moment in this unsavory story, the claimant/respondent made a statement to the police, which is reflected in DD no. 16PP dated 12.02.2015, that he had boarded the train along with three others and was going to Meerut to sell dholaks. It is pertinent to mention that the claimant/respondent hails from a very impoverished background and it is improbable that being a layman he would be in the state of mind to concoct a version of the accident, keeping an eye on the grant of any compensation in the future. This version was corroborated by his co-passenger Ismil in his statement under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code to the Investigating Officer. Although Ismil was not examined during the inquiry before the RCT, the version of AW-1 i.e., the claimant was not challenged in the cross-examination, to the effect that he had already boarded the train with three others namely, Ismil, Iliyas and Talib and fell out of the running train due to overcrowding. The plea in the appeal that the claimant was trying to board a running train with a dholak is by way of an afterthought. No such suggestion was given to AW-1 in his cross-examination and his testimony read as a whole is inspiring truthfulness. Secondly, there is no such fact deposed by RW-1 i.e., the Guard on Train no. 54031 in his testimony either.

9. All said and done, the plea of injury being self-inflicted is negatived by the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi[4], wherein it has been held as under:— 3 LCR

10. Further, the plea that the claimant/respondent was drunk at the time of the accident is also belied from the evidence on the record. No such case was ever propounded by the appellant. Lastly, in view of the 124A. Compensation on account of untoward incident – When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependent of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident. Provided that no compensation shall be payable under the section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to – (b) self-inflicted injury; Explanation. – For the purpose of this section, “passenger” includes-