Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
Esmail Sheikh & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
FAO 462 of 2019
Decided On : 18-05-2023
Delay - Railway Claims Tribunal - Section 5 of the Limitation Act, Section 151 CPC, Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - The judgment discusses the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Section 151 CPC for filing the appeal. It also refers to the impugned order under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, and the court's analysis of the recovery of the journey ticket and its influence on the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an appeal seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Section 151 CPC. The appeal was filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the dismissal of a claim petition related to a train accident resulting in the death of the appellant's husband.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reasoning given by the Tribunal for dismissing the claim petition was based on assumption and fallacious. It concluded that the recovery of the journey ticket should not have been doubted, and therefore, allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to award compensation.
Issues: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal, dismissal of the claim petition by the Railway Claims Tribunal, and the recovery of the journey ticket were the key issues in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fallacious reasoning of the Tribunal and the disbelief of the recovery of the journey ticket, leading to the allowance of the appeal and setting aside of the impugned order.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal to award compensation within two weeks.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
CM APPL. 50533/2019 (Delay)
1. The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 263 days in filing the appeal.
2. Learned CGSC appearing for the respondent/UOI fairly does not oppose the present application.
3. In view of the above, the application is allowed and the delay of 263 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
4. The application is disposed of.
FAO 462/2019
5. By way of present appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the appellants have impugned the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi in Case No. OA (IIU) No.40/2018 whereby the claim petition filed by them came to be dismissed.
6. The relevant facts are that in the claim petition, it was claimed by the appellant No. 2 that on 30.08.2017, her husband Ehesan Ali after purchasing a valid journey ticket undertook train journey from Delhi Junction to Bardhaman Junction by Sealdah Sampark Kranti Express Train. It was also claimed that while boarding the train, he accidently fell and suffered grievous injuries all over his body. He was removed to Lok Nayak Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries.
The Tribunal while noting the aforesaid facts dismissed the claim petition by disbelieving the recovery of journey ticket.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal arbitrarily dismissed the claim petition by raising presumptions. It was submitted that the journey ticket being recovered and verified, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim petition.
8. Per contra, learned CGSC for the respondent/UOI defended the impugned order by submitting that the journey ticket was not recovered in the initial search. It was submitted that the recovery is doubtful as a relative of the deceased namely Bilal, who is cousin of the son of the deceased being a Railway employee working at Howrah Division, West Bengal might have procured a ticket for the said journey and planted the same.
9. Indisputably, the incident in question took place on 30.08.2017, at Platform No.13 of Delhi Junction resulting in death of Ehesan Ali. The Tribunal though concluded that said incident was an `untoward incident' however, opined that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The first information about the incident came to be recorded vide DD No.17A at 21.05 hours on 30.08.2017 wherein it was recorded that PCR had informed that a person was lying in injured condition. The said DD was marked to ASI Mohd. Asif Khan who reached the spot. Vide DD No.20-A recorded at 22.40 hours on 30.08.2017, it was mentioned that the injured was taken to the Trauma Centre, Civil Line Hospital, where he was declared `brought dead'. The identity of the person was unknown at that time. ASI Sukhpal, the investigating officer who made initial search recovered two mobile phones as well as a paper slip from the bag amongst other articles. He informed the appellant no.1, who was in West Bengal.
Appellant No.1 examined himself and deposed that he received information about the incident about 5:00 am on 31.08.2017 when he was in his village in Murshidabad, West Bengal. He left his village at about 8:30 am and after traveling for 6 hours reached Kolkata from where he took a flight to Delhi at about 8 p.m. and reached Delhi at about 11:30 pm and arrived to the office of GRP Police Station at Old Delhi Railway Station. While being there, he was handed over the bag of his father and on search, a journey ticket was found which he handed over to the police personnel. He stated that he was accompanied by his cousin Bilal. In cross-examination, he clarified that the seizure memo for recovery of the journey ticket was prepared on the night of 31.08.2017 itself. Although a suggestion was given that the journey ticket was planted, it was denied.
10. Investigating Officer/ASI Sukhpal Singh was also examin
AI
The recovery of the journey ticket should not have been doubted for denying the compensation, and fallacious reasoning cannot form the basis of dismissing a claim petition.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the circumstances and evidence in railway incident cases and found the dismissal of the claim petition unjustified.
The recovery and verification of the journey ticket, along with the location of the body, were key in establishing the incident as an untoward incident under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act.
The court affirmed that recovery of a valid journey ticket from the deceased established his status as a bona fide passenger, qualifying the incident as an 'untoward incident' under the Act.
The determination of a person as a bonafide passenger and the classification of an incident as an 'untoward incident' are crucial in assessing the validity of a claim under the Railway Claims Tribuna....
The recovery of the journey ticket on the same date established the deceased as a bona fide passenger, and the accident qualified as an 'untoward incident' under the Railways Act.
Deceased was, a bona fide passenger and accident during which he suffered fatal injuries was an 'untoward incident’.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
