The importance of examining the facts of each case to determine the bonafide status of a passenger.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

1. This first appeal is filed by the appellant/ claimant under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated 23.9.2011 which has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant.

2. The case of the appellant was that he on 21.8.2008 at about 10 p.m. was travelling on train No. 7 SD from Shahdra to Gotra Halt, Khekra, Baghpat, U.P. after purchasing a ticket. A ticket was stated to be purchased because the validity of appellants Monthly Season Ticket from Gotra Halt to Shivaji Bridge, Delhi had earlier expired on 18.8.2008. It was further pleaded that on account of the heavy rush in the compartment of the train and since the appellant was standing near the gate of the compartment, when the train reached near the Gotra Halt, there was a sudden jerk and due to sudden jerk and thrust of the passengers, the appellant lost his balance and fell down from the running train resulting in the appellant sustaining grievous injuries to his legs. Both the legs of the appellant were injured, however, his left leg below the knee had to be amputated. The right foot of the appellant is also pleaded to be partly amputated.

3. Respondent contested the claim petition and pleaded that there was no untoward incident and also that the appellant was not a bonafide passenger. It was also pleaded that with respect to the train no. 7 SD, there was no accident which was reported at Gotra Halt, Khekra, Baghpat, U.P. Respondent also pleaded that the case was a case of ‘run over’ and not of an ‘untoward incident’ as per the meaning of the expression in Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

4. The Railway Claims Tribunal has arrived at a finding that the appellant was not a bonafide passenger because no train ticket was recovered. The statement of the co-passenger Bharat Singh has been disbelieved. Tribunal also notes that even the document of the hospital where the appellant was admitted stated that the case was the case of run over. Accordingly the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition.

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

6. No doubt, train ticket is lost in many cases of untoward incident and non-recovery of train ticket and non-filing of train ticket is not conclusive of the aspect as to whether a person is or is not a bonafide passenger, however, a Court has to examine the facts of each case to determine whether the person was a bonafide passenger i.e. there was a train travel and the train travel was pursuant to having a valid ticket. In the present case I find that besides the reasoning given by the Tribunal there is one other important reason why the claim petition of the appellant lacks honesty. Appellant claims that he had purchased a ticket to travel to Gotra Halt because his Monthly Season Ticket from Gotra Halt to Shivaji Bridge had expired, and which expired MST is filed as Exhibit AW-1/6, however, this document as exhibit AW-1/6 cannot help the petitioner to show the purchase of the ticket inasmuch as this MST is not for travel to Gotra Halt Station at Baghpat, U.P. but for his travel from Gotra Halt Railway Station to Shivaji Bridge Railway Station at New Delhi. Therefore, the appellant never had a valid Monthly Season Ticket which has expired even for travel to Gotra Halt. The case of the appellant, therefore, clearly lacks credibility.

7. So far as the statement of AW-2 Bharat Singh is concerned no doubt he did make a statement to the police that the appellant who was working as a driver with a member of parliament was travelling with him on 21.8.2008, however, in my opinion in the facts of the present case this Court would not like to believe the oral statement of Bharat Singh of the train travel of the appellant for various reasons. Firstly, as already observed above the case of the appellant is found to lack credibility as per the reasoning given herein above. Second reason for no