Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 513
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
Soni Devi & Others
Versus
Union of India
FAO No. 406 of 2010
Decided On : 17-02-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants:S.K. Vashistha, Advocate.
The liability of the Railways is a strict liability as per Section 123(c) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
Headnote:
Railway Claims Tribunal Act - Appeal - Section 23 - Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Section 123(c), Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 - The court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment, granting the appellants statutory compensation of Rs.4 lacs along with interest at 7 ½ % p.a. simple from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment.
Fact of the Case:
The claim petition was filed by the appellants, as dependants of the deceased Sh. Sanjeev Das, who died in an untoward incident by falling from the train while travelling from Rathdhana to Holambi Kalan.
Finding of the Court:
The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, stating that the evidence on record clearly proved that the deceased was not a victim of an untoward incident but was run over by a train. However, the court found that there was sufficient evidence showing that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and fell down from the train, allowing the appeal and granting statutory compensation to the appellants.
Issues: The main issue was whether the deceased died in an untoward incident by falling from the train or was run over by a train.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the liability of the Railways is a strict liability as per Section 123(c) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and found that the evidence on record supported the conclusion that the deceased died by falling from the train.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were granted statutory compensation of Rs.4 lacs along with interest at 7 ½ % p.a. simple from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment.
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral)
1. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 18.8.2010 which has dismissed the claim petition.
2. The claim petition was filed by the appellants, applicants before the Railway Claims Tribunal, as dependants of the deceased Sh. Sanjeev Das, who died in an untoward incident on 8.6.2009 by falling from the train while travelling from Rathdhana to Holambi Kalan.
3. The Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the petition by making the following observations:-
“Regarding Issue Nos 2,3 & 4
These issues are clubbed together for the sake of convenience, and also because they are inter-related. The applicant have placed on record the ticket valid from Rathdhana to Holambi Kalan (AW1/8). There is also on record the Jamatalashi Report (AW1/9) which shows that two tickets, one from Rathdhana to Holambi Kalan and another from Holambi Kalan to Rathdhana were recovered from the body of the deceased. However, the respondent’s counsel has argued that although two tickets were available in the pocket of Sh. Sanjeev Das, there is no mention of the train by which he was travelling and that his death was not due to fall from a train but on account of being run over by a train.
Regarding the nature of the incident, to prove that Sh. Sanjeev Dass has fallen from the train, the applicants’ counsel has drawn attention of the court to the statement of Sh. Akash (AW1/5) in which he has stated that the death of Sh. Sanjeev Das was due to fall from a train. However, as rightly pointed out by the Learned Counsel for respondent, the evidence of Sh. Akash cannot be accepted at fact value as he is the brother of Sh. Sanjeev Das and was also not a witness to the incident. Most significant is the police report (AW1/7) in which it run over by some train. It is also significant that the police in the “Brief facts” (AW1/3) has observed that due to being run over, the body of Sh. Sanjeev Das was cut into several pieces. A run over incident would result in complete mutilation of the body of the victim as in this case. The evidence on record clearly points to the fact that Sh. Sanjeev Das was run over by a train and that he was not a victim of an untoward incident. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the respondent and against the applicant.
Since the evidence on record clearly proves that this is not the case of an untoward incident but it is a case of run over, the present claim application stands dismissed.
In the result, therefore, the claim application filed by the applicant is dismissed. There are, however, no orders as to costs.”
4. In my opinion, the Railway Claims Tribunal has clearly gone off on a tangent although sufficient evidence was available before the Tribunal which showed that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, and he fell down from the train. The following facts emerge from the record and which persuade me to allow this appeal and therefore, the claim petition:-
(i) It is during the jamatalashi of the deceased Sh. Sanjeev Das that tickets were recovered for both to and fro journey clearly showing that the deceased was a bonafide passenger.
(ii) The body of the deceased, badly cut up, was found on the tracks at K.M.P No. 22/4 and 24/6, which is at a place in between the journey from Rathdhana to Holambi Kalan, and the only way in which the deceased could have been found there was if he had fallen down from the train inasmuch as an undisputed position which emerges on record is that the deceased was not living anywhere near the place where his body was found.
(iii) The Tribunal has erred in observing that if the deceased was found dead on account of being badly cut up, it would be only on account of his being run over by another train, inasmuch as, it is perfectly possible on many occasions that if the deceased gets entangled in the steps of the train while falling down from the train, he can come under the sam
