Latifun Nisha v. Union of India & Anr.

1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the Act’), the appellant (claimant No. 1 therein) has assailed the order dated 05.03.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi whereby the claim application filed by them was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate that a valid journey ticket alongwith other articles was recovered in the Jamatalashi from the person of Abdul Jauf @ Mohd. Jauf (the deceased). It is submitted that the deceased had boarded Gorakhdham Express Train No. 12556 and the body of the deceased was also found lying on the railway line which was on the route of the said train.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order and submitted that in the Panchnama as well as DRM Report, the factum of recovery of any ticket was not mentioned.

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

5. Brief facts as narrated in the claim application are that on 19.10.2017, the deceased purchased a journey ticket bearing No. L59901583 for travel from Nangloi to Gorakhpur Jn. by Gorakhdam Express Train No. 12556. It was claimed that when the train had reached near Village Darau, P.S. Chandose, Abdul Jauf @ Mohd. Jauf was standing near the gate of the compartment to use the loo and due to sudden jerk, fell from the moving train and died on the spot. The post-mortem of the body was conducted at Distt. Mortuary Aligarh.

6. As per the Station Master Memo dated 19.10.2017, the driver of Train No. 12874 reported that body of a person was found lying at KM NO. 1351/30-32. Subsequent thereto, Jamatalashi was conducted, in which, original journey ticket bearing No. L59901583 alongwith other articles i.e., one mobile phone, one cap and Rs.1,000/- was recovered from the person of the deceased. During the proceedings before the Tribunal, the respondents have neither questioned the validity of the aforesaid journey ticket recovered from the person of the deceased nor disputed that the said ticket was not for travel from Nangloi to Gorakhpur Jn.

7. A perusal of the material placed on record would show that though the Investigating Officer/Pawan Kumar was summoned by the Tribunal on several occasions, however he failed to appear. Although, in the impugned order it has been observed that the factum of recovery of journey ticket was not mentioned in the Panchnama, however it is borne out from the record that a stamped and signed copy of the journey ticket bearing No. L59901583 was annexed therewith at Sl No. ‘9’. In the DRM Report, it has been stated that the journey ticket was verified and also that the death had occurred on account of fall from the train.

8. This Court is of the opinion that the appellant has discharged initial burden cast on her by stating the necessary facts. Admittedly, the journey ticket was recovered as reflected in the Jamatalashi report. As noted above, the respondents have neither denied the factum of recovery of valid journey ticket nor that the body of the deceased was discovered on the railway line which was on the route of Train No. 12556, for which the journey ticket was purchased. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the deceased was in fact, a bona fide passenger and the accident during which he suffered injuries was an ‘untoward incident’ as defined under Section 123(c) of the Act.

9. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for awarding the amount of compensation in terms of the Act. The matter shall be listed at the first instance before the Tribunal on 16.12.2022. Let the compensation amount be paid to the appellant/claimant within three 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 DECEMBER 05, 2022