SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Del) 1459

High Court of Delhi
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Maya Devi
Versus
Union of India
FAO No. 221 of 2013
Decided On: 22-05-2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:B.K. Ray, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Rashmi Malhotra, Advocate for Railways.

The importance of considering all relevant evidence and facts before reaching a decision.

Headnote:

Railway Claims Tribunal Act - Appeal - Section 23 - Summary

Fact of the Case:

The appellant's son died in an untoward incident while traveling by train. The claim petition was dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal due to alleged manipulation of facts and lack of evidence.

Finding of the Court:

The conclusions of the Tribunal were deemed perverse and erroneous by the court. The court set aside the Tribunal's order and allowed the appeal, granting the appellant statutory compensation.

Issues: Alleged manipulation of facts, lack of evidence, and erroneous conclusions by the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Tribunal's conclusions were based on irrelevant aspects and set them aside. It also emphasized the importance of considering all relevant evidence and facts before reaching a decision.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted statutory compensation.

Judgment :

Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral)

C.M.No.7462/2013

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 57 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Application stands disposed of.

+FAO No.221/2013

1. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated 27.11.2012 by which the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant/applicant, who is the mother of the deceased Anuj Kumar. The facts as pleaded by the appellant/applicant are that her son Anuj Kumar on 15.5.2010 was travelling from ex- Delhi Cantt. railway station to Rewari. When the train reached between Basai Dhankot and Garhi Harsari railway station, on account of a jerk in the train and jostling of passengers, Anuj Kumar fell down from the moving train and died on the spot.

2. The claim petition was contested by the respondent who denied the happening of the untoward incident.

3. The Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition by the following observations:-

“ Issue Nos. 2, 3 & 4:-

These three issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience, as these are inter-related.

The applicant’s case is that her son Shri Anuj Kumar while travelling from Delhi Cantt to Rewari on 15.5.2010 fell down between Basai Dhankot and Garhi Harasaru stations at K.M 35/6-7. A copy of the journey ticket of the deceased dated 15.5.2010 has been placed on record (marketed as ‘B’) by the applicant, though the same does not find mention in either the Panchnama (Ex. AW1/7) or in the list of articles handed over (EX. AW1/8).

Respondent opposed the case and emphasized that facts have been mostly manipulated so as to bring the case within the ambit of Section 123 (c) (2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 just to get the claim amount. In support, the respondent brought out the following important points:-

i) Body of the deceased was found on 16.5.2010 at 7.20 a.m (journey on 15.5.2010) by the Keyman of the Railways, who found a body lying in the field 6 or 7 meters away from the Dn. Track (Rewari to Delhi Cantt) while as per the applicant, the deceased was travelling ex-Delhi Cantt to Rewari (Up side) which tract is on the left on the Dn track and, therefore, it is not possible that a person fallen down from the Up track would land in the field after crossing the Dn track.

ii) As per the post-mortem report (Ex.AW1/11), death is reported to have occurred within 12 hours of post-mortem which was clducted at 16.30 on 16.5.2010, which means that death would have occurred after 4.30 a.m on 16.5.2010. As per the applicant, the deceased left for Rewari on 15.5.2010 (no time or train number, by which travelled mentioned). The last passenger train to Rewari, as per respondent, was 54410 (9RD) with Delhi departure at 20.05 hrs, Rewari arrival at 22.40 hrs.

iii) In Death Report (Ex.AW1/7), marked as ‘A’ in green, there is a mention on 5th page of the report that the deceased person was suspected to have been arrested in the village in case of theft earlier.

After going through the entire material and evidence placed on record and hearing the arguments of both sides, the Tribunal feels that serious manipulation of facts are suspected to have been done by the applicant in this case, as brought out above by the respondent and that no case of fall from train is brought out from the facts and evidence on record. The Tribunal, therefore, decides Issue Nos 2 and 3 against the applicant and Issue No.4 in favour of the respondent.

The claim application is dismissed. There is, however, no order as to costs.

(A.K. Goyal)

Member (Technical)”

4. A reading of the aforesaid observations of the Tribunal shows that the claim petition was dismissed because no train ticket was found in the list of articles handed over (Ex.AW1/8). The Tribunal also concludes that the existence of the train ticket is not recorded in the Panchnama (Ex.AW1/7








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top