Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO 27/2022
Date of Reserve: 18.10.2022
Date of Decision: 18.11.2022 IN THE MATTTER OF:
SMT. BINDA DEVI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood, Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates.
Through: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC for UOI with Ms. Vrinde Barati, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant seeks condonation of delay of 724 days in filing the present appeal.
2. Mr. Rajan Sood, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the father of the deceased had pre-deceased him. He further submits that after passing of the impugned order dated 14.08.2019, the appellant, who is mother of the deceased, aged about 60 years, is an illiterate and poor lady on the basis of which, could not instruct her counsel to file the appeal timely. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the following decisions, firstly, a decision passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mohsina & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. reported as 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10003; a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Wasim Shamshulhak Shaikh v. Union of India reported as 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 3330; and lastly, a decision of the Bombay High Court in Smt. Kokilabai wd/o Shankarrao Choudhari v. Union of India, thr. its General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai, FAO 6007/2019.
3. Notably, in Mohsina (Supra), a delay of 804 days in filing of the appeal was condoned by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considering the poor economic status of the appellants/claimants.
4. In alike facts and circumstances, this Court in FAO 100/2021 titled as Sh. Saddam v. Union of India condoned delay of 685 days in filing of the appeal against the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to determine the amount of compensation and interest to be awarded to the appellant therein.
5. The impugned order was passed on 14.08.2019. Although, delay of 724 days is noted, this Court also takes note of the fact that, vide order dated 23.09.2021 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, the Supreme Court has directed that for computing the period of limitation in suit, appeal, application or proceedings, the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded. Even though, in the present case, the period of limitation already expired prior to 15.03.2020, however, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and the delay of 724 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.
6. In view of the above mentioned submissions and circumstances, the application is disposed of.
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 has assailed the order dated 14.08.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi.
2. Briefly, the facts as noted by the Tribunal are that the appellant, in the claim petition stated that on 08.10.2017, her son Dharmender (deceased) was travelling from Saharanpur to Delhi on a valid ticket bearing no. 56549983 and when the train reached near Delhi, Shahdara Station, he fell from the moving train and sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to GTB Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries.
3. Mr. Sood, learned counsel for the appellant contended that while passing the impugned order, the Tribunal failed to appreciate that deceased was a bonafide passenger as the journey ticket was recovered and in terms of the first statement given by appellant as well as that of Jitender (Brother of deceased), the deceased suffered fatal injuries in the untoward incident, when he accidentally fell from the moving train. It was further contended that the Tribunal wrongly relied upon the subsequent statements recorded during DRM proceedings, which itself was conducted after a substantial delay.
4. Per contra, Ms. Lakra, learned CGSC appearing for the Respondent has supported the impugned order by submitting that the deceased did not travel on the train route that he was authorised to take in terms of the journey ticket, which specified that the travel was from Saharanpur Railway Station to Delhi Junction via Meerut City and Delhi Shahdara. The body of deceased was found on a completely different train route and thus, he cannot be held to be a bonafide passenger and the accident does not fall within the realm of an ‘untoward incident’.
5. It is pertinent to note that the journey ticket bearing no. 56549983 which was claimed to be purchased by the deceased on 08.10.2017 from the Saharanpur Railway Station, was recovered from the body of deceased in the Jamatalashi. A copy of the ticket was placed on record before the Tribunal. It mentions that it was issued on 08.10.2017 at 08:08 hours at Saharanpur Railway Station for travel from Saharanpur Railway Station to Delhi Junction via Meerut City and Delhi Shahdara. The ticket was also verified to be genuine and valid.
6. It is worthwhile to note that in the inquest proceedings, statement of brother of the deceased i.e., Jitender was recorded wherein he stated that the deceased had gone out on 07.10.2017 to Saharanpur, U.P. to meet his friend and while coming back on 08.10.2017, he accidentally fell at Meet Nagar Phatak near Cremation ground, Delhi from the moving train and later, was taken to GTB Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries.
7. The objection taken on behalf of the respondent is that a different train route was taken by the deceased while coming from Saharanpur to Delhi and the journey ticket found with the deceased was in fact a stolen one.
8. Admittedly, the body of deceased was found on the railway line. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that there are two alternate routes for travelling from Saharanpur Railway Station to Delhi Railway Station, and while one route passes from Meerut City, the other, route, that is a shorter one passes from Loni, District, Ghaziabad. It is further submitted that the deceased while travelling on this route fell from the moving train. It is noted that there is neither any contentions raised nor any material placed on the record stating that there was any price difference in the journey ticket for the two alternate routes. A similar contention was raised before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sumitra Pandit v. Union of India reported as MANU/MP/1460/2014. While rejecting the contention, it was held that:
11. This Court, in Bhola v. Union of India reported as (2018) SCC Online Del 13486, has held delay in initiation of DRM Inquiry to be fatal to the facts of the case, as what needs to be essentially gathered is what happened on the date of the accident. In the captioned case, it has been opined as follows:-
12. In alike facts and circumstances in Vikrant & Ors. v. Union of India, reported as 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3439 wherein reliance was sought to be placed on the DRM Report which was filed after a period of about 05 months, this Court while setting aside the impugned order observed that such a Report is of no avail.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the deceased at the time of incident was a bonafide passenger and suffered the accident, in an untoward incident.
14. 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 25.11.2022.
15. Miscellaneous applications, if any are disposed of.
16. A copy of this order along with the records, if any, be sent to the Tribunal.
JUDGE NOVEMBER 18, 2022