Chandani & Ors. v. Union of India

1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the Act’) on behalf of the appellants/claimants assailing judgment dated 25.07.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi in Case No.OA/II(u)246/2017 whereby the claim application filed by them was dismissed.

2. Mr. Mudit Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that despite the fact that recovery of journey ticket was mentioned in Panchnama, the same was erroneously disbelieved by the Tribunal. He further contended that the incident is covered under the definition of ‘untoward incident’ and the conclusion of the Tribunal in this regard was also erroneous as the body of the deceased was found near Pilkhua Railway Track.

3. Ms. Amrita Prakash, learned CGSC for the respondent, on the other hand, defended the impugned judgment by submitting that the recovery of the journey ticket was rightly disbelieved, as no journey ticket was recovered initially. It was contended that the alleged incident occurred on account of negligence on the part of the deceased and the claim petition was rightly rejected.

4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the material placed on record.

5. The facts, as culled out from the appeal paperbook, are that it was claimed that Ram Fer (deceased) undertook a train journey on 18.08.2017 from Delhi Junction to Rae Bareli Junction after purchasing a journey ticket. In the said journey, he was accompanied by his friend Sh.Ram Narayan. During the course of the journey, when the train was about to reach Pilkhua Railway Station, the deceased handed over his bag to his friend Sh.Ram Narayan and went to answer nature’s call. While he was waiting near the gate of the compartment, on account of sudden jerk and push by the crowd, the deceased accidently fell from the moving train near Pilkhua Railway Station. Sh.Ram Narayan, on not finding the deceased, went to the home of the deceased and handed over the bag, where he learnt about the accident of the deceased. Sh.Ram Narayan appeared as AW-2 before the Tribunal and stated that he and the deceased belonged to the same village having their residences near each other. He further stated that on 18.08.2017, when he reached Old Delhi Railway Station, he met with the deceased outside the railway station co-incidentally. Both of them purchased their separate journey tickets from booking office and boarded the Train in the same compartment. While they managed to get one seat, on which the witness sat, the deceased was standing. When the train was about to reach Pilkhua Railway Station, the deceased handed over his bag to the witness and went to answer nature’s call. The Train (Padmawat Express) left Old Delhi Railway Station at about 07:50 p.m. and reached Rae Bareli Railway Station on 19.08.2017 at about 08:00 a.m. After the witness de-boarded, he reached his house at 11:00 am. Thereafter, he went to house of the deceased at about 11:30 am, where he handed over the latter’s bag to his family member. The witness produced his own ticket which was marked as A/18.

6. It is noted that the Tribunal has doubted the recovery of the journey ticket as mentioned in the Panchnama for the reason that while Sh.Ram Narayan handed over the bag of the deceased to his family member at about 11:30 a.m. on 19.08.2017, the Panchnama, statedly prepared between 06:10 and 08:25 hours mentioned the journey ticket details.

7. In the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the statement of ASI Sanjay Kumar who appeared as CW-1 and explained that the time of completion of inquest proceedings was wrongly mentioned as 08:25 hours. He also stated that though initially details of journey ticket were not available with him, later at about 11:00 am, a copy of the railway ticket was received from Sh.Pappu Singh, the brother of the deceased. In view of the explanation given by ASI Sanjay Kumar; the fact that not only the journey ticket of the deceased but also of Sh.Ram Narayan were placed on record; and the further fact that the journey ticket of the deceased was also verified vide Report dated 27.01.2018, this Court is of the opinion that the deceased was a bonafide passenger.

8. As the body of the deceased was found near the railway track, in view of the facts mentioned in the claim petition and appellants’ affidavit, as well as statement of Sh.Ram Narayan, this Court has no doubt that the incident is covered under ‘untoward incident’ as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. The contention raised by learned CGSC for the respondent that the incident occurred on account of negligence on the part of the deceased, merits rejection in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi reported as (2019) 3 SCC 572.

9. Accordingly, the appellants succeed and the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for awarding compensation in terms of the Act. Let the matter be listed before the concerned Tribunal on 13.03.2023 at the first instance, and the compensation amount be awarded to the appellants/claimants within two weeks thereafter.

10. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

11. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the concerned Tribunal for information.

JUDGE MARCH 03, 2023