Keeraty & Ors. v. Union of India

1. The appellants No.1 to 5, namely, Keeraty Datta, Puru Datta, Shilpi Datta, Vibhuti Datta and Lalima Datta of whom the appellant No.1, Keeraty Datta is the widow of the deceased Pawan Kumar Datta and the appellant No.2 Puru Datta, is the son of the deceased and the appellants No. 3 to 5, i.e., Shilpi Datta, Vibhuti Datta and Lalima Datta are the daughters of the deceased Pawan Kumar Datta, vide the present appeal assail the impugned judgment dated 14.11.2013 of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi in Claim Application No. OA(IIU)21/2012 whereby the claim made by the appellants No. 1 and 2 herein, i.e.the widow of the deceased and the 2020:DHC:1755 son of the deceased, seeking compensation of Rs.10 lacs under Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 for the death of the deceased Pawan Kumar Datta, the husband of Keeraty Datta and the father of Puru Datta, in an accident on 28.11.2011 whilst travelling through an EMU Train from Faridabad to Okhla Railway Station, by accidentally falling down from the running train near Faridabad was declined- it having been held vide the impugned judgment that the deceased Pawan Kumar Datta did not fall from the train but was run over by a freight train whilst trespassing the track and that in as much as a ‘run over’ does not fall within the ambit of untoward incident, in terms of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 and is rather a case of a negligent and wilful act in terms of Section 124A(b) of the Railways Act, 1989, with the impugned judgment having also disbelieved the tickets EX.A-7 recovered as per the jamatalashi of the deceased on the ground that the jamatalashi was not an authentic document and had been fudged/fabricated for the purpose of the claim in as much as the separate loose report EX.A-3, the jamatalashi stating that return tickets along with money (Rs.2520/-), a pair of spectacles and a gold ring were recovered from the deceased was not part of the Inquest papers submitted to the doctor at the time of the autopsy as it did not bear the signatures of the concerned doctor of the B.K. Hospital, Faridabad and it was held vide the impugned judgment that the photocopy of the tickets that had been filed as evidence had been procured clandestinely and were not acceptable and that the deceased was run over by another train and was not a passenger of any train much less a bona fide passenger and had no reason to buy a ticket.

2. The appellants submit therefore through the appeal that the deceased Pawan Kumar Datta s/o Late Sh.Mangal San Dutta, aged 57 years whose occupation was service was going the Okhla, New Delhi from Faridabad on an EMU Passenger Railway Train against a valid Railway Ticket bearing No. Q-33461168 and a return Railway Ticket bearing No. Q-33461169 in the morning of 28.11.2011 and when the said train reached at KM No. 1509/21-19, 3rd Line Yard, Faridabad, Railway Station, Haryana, there was a heavy rush in the compartment and the deceased who was standing near the gate due to a strong sudden jerk of the train, fell down from the moving train and was crushed by a Goods Train and suffered fatal injuries on his person in the said untoward railway accident. The appellants submit that the matter was reported to the GRP Faridabad, Haryana Vide DD No. 18 dated 28.11.2011 and the post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted at the B.K.Hospital, Faridabad, Haryana vide the Post Mortem No. 42/ADS/BKH/2011 dated 28.11.2011. The appellants submit that the deceased had valid tickets for the to and fro journey at the time of the incident from Faridabad to Okhla and from Okhla to Faridabad which railway tickets were recovered from his personal search/jamatalashi by the police and that the deceased was aged 57 years and had a monthly salary of Rs.12,000/-. The appellants submit that the contention raised by the Union of India that the deceased did not die in an untoward incident and did not die due to falling from a running train and died due to his own act whilst trespassing the Railway track and thus was knocked down by a speedy train was erroneous in as much as the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train with tickets having been recovered for the to and fro journey from his jamatalashi and merely because there is no signature of the attending doctor of the B.K.Hospital Faridabad, on the documents produced by GRP Faridabad, the same cannot be considered as forged and fabricated or procured only for filing the claim petition.

3. On behalf of the appellants it has further been submitted that though the tickets as per EX.A-7, the photocopy thereof reveal that they were purchased at 7:50 a.m. on 28.11.2011, the same cannot be disbelieved as has been so done by the Railway Claims Tribunal for the deceased was residing at New Colony, Railway Road, Faridabad at a walking distance of hardly two minutes from the Railway Ticket Counter, Faridabad, and at 9:45 hrs there was great rush at the window, he had purchased the tickets including the return ticket to and from Okhla Railway Station and that the Railway Claims Tribunal ought not to have drawn an adverse inference on the purchasing of the tickets in advance.

4. The appellants have further submitted that even the post mortem report dated 28.11.2011 opines to the effect:

1. Remarks of the Medical officer/Board (Opinion as to cause and manner of death): IN MY OPINION THE CASUE OF DEATH IN THIS CASE IS SHOCK AND HAEMORRAHAGE DUE TO INJURY TO VITAL ORGAN I.E., LUNGS WHICH IS ANTE MORTEM IN NATURE AND SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE DEATH IN ORDINARY COURSE OF NATURE.

THE POSSIBILITY OF RAILWAY ACCIDENT CANNOT BE RULED OUT.

2. Probable time since death (a)Between injury and death VARIABLE (b) Between death and Post-mortem examination WITHIN 24 HRS.”, with it having also given the probable time between the death and the post mortem examination being within 24 hours.

5. The appellants have further submitted that the testimonies of the witnesses i.e., the appellant No.1 and her son-in-law Ankur Sharma do not deviate from the factum of the untoward accident having taken place and of the deceased having fallen down from the train which had been boarded by him and having then been run over by the Goods Train. The appellants submit that there is nothing to substantiate the observations in the impugned judgment that the accident was self created or self inflicted by the deceased.

6. To similar effect were the submissions made on behalf of the appellants through the present appeal.

7. The Union of India chose not to be represented on 29.11.2017 on which date, in the interest of justice no adverse orders were passed with the matter having been re-notified for final disposal on 1.3.2018. On 1.3.2018 also there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent Union of India and the Court Notice through the counsel was directed to be issued, returnable for 17.7.2018 and as observed vide order dated 17.7.2018 despite the Court Notice issued to the learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India, Northern Railway which was duly served on the learned counsel for the Union of India, there was none present despite service of the said Court Notice and thus the arguments were allowed to be addressed on behalf of the appellant. In the interest of justice, however, the records of the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi have been perused and the written statement that has been filed on behalf of the Union of India on the records before the learned Railways Claims Tribunal as well as the evidence recorded has been perused.

8. The submissions made through the written statement of the Union of India on behalf of the Northern Railways dated 27.2.2012 state to the effect that the deceased sustained injuries due to his own criminal acts of omission and commission and negligence and the said injuries were self inflicted injuries for which criminal act and negligence of the deceased, the respondent could not be burdened and that the incident did not fall within the purview of an ‘untoward incident’.

9. Significantly, the written statement that was submitted by the respondent before the Railway Claims Tribunal does not specifically deny paragraph 7 of the claim petition in as much as para 7 of the claim petition reads to the effect: “7. Class of travel ticket number to the extent known The deceased was having valid ticket no. Q-33461168 and Q- 33461169” and rather para 7 in response in the written statement is to the effect:-

10. The jamatalashi of the corpse EX.AW-1/3 placed before the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 28.11.2011 of the GRP, Faridabad states categorically to the effect that Rs.2520/- in cash, two mobile phones, two railway tickets i.e. from Faridabad to Okhla and Okhla to Faridabad, a pair of spectacles and a gold ring were retrieved in the jamatalashi of the corpse of the deceased and the articles except the tickets had been released to Sh. Sunil S/o Uday Ram Sharma. The said documents placed as EX.AW1/3 on the records of the Railway Claims Tribunal as issued by the SPIO-cum-Superintendent of Police (Railways) (HR) Ambala Cantt. vide No. 358/12 were issued on 26.1.2012 under the RTI Act,2005. There appears thus absolutely no reason to disbelieve the documents EX.AW1/3 as has been done by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal. In the circumstances, merely because the deceased was found in the centre of the middle (3rd line) in between platform No.1 and 2 i.e. into the centre of the nearby track on which a freight train was coming on 28.11.2011, the observations of the learned Railway Claims Tribunal that as the minimum gap between the two running lines in a yard is around 10 feet and that it was thus unlikely that a man would fall that far from a train which had just commenced its journey cannot be accepted.

11. Furthermore, though there are discrepancies in the testimonies of the appellant No.1 and her son-in-law Ankur Sharma in relation to the aspect as to whether Ankur Sharma had accompanied the deceased on to the train, it cannot be overlooked that Ankur Sharma had stated that he had purchased his tickets separately.