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.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral)--The appellants have preferred the present appeal under Section 23 of The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') thereby seeking setting aside of the order dated 31.03.2016 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench in case No. OA(IIu)71/2011 whereby their Claim Petition filed under Section 16 of the Act came to be dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the journey ticket was recovered on the date of the incident and the said fact is also found mentioned in the Panchnama recorded by the staff of GRP on the date of the incident itself. He has submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating the above fact and rather based its decision only on the non-mentioning of the recovery of the journey ticket in other Panchnama/other reports.

3. The present appeal was filed in the year 2017 and the respondent has been duly served but has failed to appear despite many adjournments. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to consider the submissions made on behalf of the appellants.

4. A perusal of the appeal paper book would show that in the application filed before the Tribunal, the appellants had claimed that on 22.09.2010, Neter Pal @ Pappu (the deceased) undertook a train journey from Aligarh to Delhi Shahdara in AD5 train after purchasing a valid journey ticket bearing No.G39318705. When the train reached platform No.3 of Aligarh Railway Station, on account of sudden jerk, the deceased fell from the moving train and received serious injuries.

In the DRM Report, the respondent took a stand that injuries were self inflicted. The Tribunal also disbelieved the recovery of the ticket shown in the Panchnama on the ground that the same was not reflected in the other exhibits which had reflected only recovery of mobile phone and a cash of Rs.80/-. Though the Tribunal observed that the recovery of journey ticket was not mentioned in the post-mortem report and inquest report, this Court has failed to understand as to how the post-mortem and inquest reports would be relevant for establishing claim of recovery of a journey ticket especially when the official record of GRP mentioned the recovery. Notably, the Panchnama drawn by GRP showing the recovery of the journey ticket was placed on record before the Tribunal. The journey ticket bearing No.G39318705 not only finds mention in the said Panchnama, but also in the DRM Report. Despite knowing the ticket number, the respondent failed to file any verification report in this regard.

5. In the considered opinion of this Court and in light of the fact that the journey ticket was recovered on the same date, the deceased cannot be held to be not a bona fide passenger. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect is set aside.

6. Coming to the next aspect as to whether the incident comes under the definition of an `untoward incident' in terms of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, it is seen that it was not disputed by the respondent that the body of the deceased was found at railway track of platform No.3 of Aligarh Railway Station.

7. The stand taken by the respondent in the DRM Report, that the accident took place on account of self inflected injuries needs outright rejection in view of the decision of Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi reported as (2019) 3 SCC 572, where the Supreme Court has noted thus:

"25. We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of `self-inflicted injury' would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on `no fault theory'. We may in this connection refer to judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Sunil Kumar laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based