Komal Singh & Anr v. Union of India

1. This appeal was instituted seeking to assail the order dated 19.07.2011 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi in OA (IIu) No. 58/2010, whereby the claim application filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Veerpal for death compensation was dismissed.

2. In the claim application, the legal heirs of the deceased Veerpal claimed that on 19.02.2009, the deceased left his house at about 2.00 pm for going to New Delhi from New Town Faridabad, and after purchasing a valid journey ticket, boarded the EMU train no. SNP 3 from New Town, Faridabad Railway Station. As there was heavy rush in the compartment, he was standing inside the gate of the compartment and when the train reached Okhla Railway Station, on account of a heavy jerk, he fell from the moving train. The incident was stated to be witnessed by one Dharender, who informed RPF at Okhla Railway Station. The RPF, in turn, informed the family of the deceased about the incident. The post-mortem of Veerpal was conducted on the next day at Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital.

3. The respondent contested the claim, stating that since no journey ticket was recovered from the deceased Veerpal, he was not a bona fide passenger. It was further contended that the deceased met with an accident on account of his own negligence, and no compensation was payable therefore, as his act came under exception (c) of the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.

4. Vide order dated 26.02.2014, the Predecessor Bench of this Court, while agreeing with the findings of the RCT, came to the conclusion that a concocted story was given by the legal heirs of the deceased, who were unjustly claiming statutory compensation. The Court, while reaching the said conclusion, took note of the statement of Sahdev Singh, RPF Constable, Hazrat Nizamuddin, who stated that the deceased had died while crossing the railway track. In the aforesaid background, the Registrar General of this Court was directed to conduct an inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the appellants for filing a false case, leading false evidence, and filing a false affidavit before the RCT. The Registrar General was directed to give a report to this Court after completing the necessary inquiry within a period of 4 months.

5. The proceedings show that the said inquiry was conducted by the submitted and directed to be placed before the Court. On the basis of the inquiry conducted, the Registrar General came to the conclusion that the appellants were liable to be prosecuted for giving false statement before this Court as well as the RCT.

6. It appears that thereafter the present matter came to be listed along with a batch of petitions wherein the Bench was seized of a larger issue. In between, appellant no. 1/Komal Singh statedly passed away and efforts to summon appellant no. 2/Ram Murti remained futile.

7. Section 340 Cr.P.C. provides for an inquiry and filing of a complaint in case the party is found to have committed offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The said provision reads as under:-