Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 1970
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Prakash Gupta, J.
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Bimla & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 276 of 2022
Decided On : 03-03-2022
Mrs. Archana Mantri, Advocate, for the Appellant.
The burden of proving that a passenger was not a bonafide passenger lies on the Railway Administration, and the absence of a ticket with the injured or deceased does not necessarily negate the claim that he was a bona fide passenger.
Headnote:
Railways - Bonafide Passenger - The court held that the burden of proving that the passenger was not a bonafide passenger lies on the Railway Administration. The absence of a ticket with the injured or deceased does not necessarily negate the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. The initial burden is on the claimant, which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts, and then the burden shifts to the Railways to prove that the passenger was traveling ticketless.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants filed a claim petition against the Railways, stating that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and suffered fatal injuries after falling from a running train. The Railway Claims Tribunal allowed the claim and awarded compensation, leading to the appeal by the Railways.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and upheld the Tribunal's decision to award compensation to the claimants.
Issues: The main issue was whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train at the relevant time, as claimed by the claimants.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proving that the passenger was not a bonafide passenger lies on the Railway Administration. The absence of a ticket with the injured or deceased does not necessarily negate the claim that he was a bona fide passenger.
Final Decision: The appeal by the Railways was dismissed, and the decision of the Tribunal to award compensation to the claimants was upheld.
JUDGMENT
1. This Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant- Railways against the judgment dated 1.11.2021 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (for short, 'the Tribunal') in OA-II- 130/2016, whereby the claim application filed by the respondents- claimants (for short, 'the claimants') has been allowed and a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of judgment till actual payment has been awarded in their favour.
2. Facts of the case are that the claimants filed a claim petition against the Railways, wherein it was averred that on 22.4.2016 Shri Manoharlal was to perform his journey ex. Sadulpur to Churu by Train No. 04781 i.e. Hissar - Salasar Mela Special. For that purpose, his son Mohanlal came to see him off at Sadulpur railway station and ticket was also purchased by him for his father Shri Manoharlal. There was heavy rush of passengers in the train on that day. During journey, when the said train was about to reach Churu Railway Station, Shri Manoharlal came near the door of the coach with an intention to get down at his destination. In the meantime, Shri Manoharlal due to a sudden jerk of the train and resultant push from the fellow coach passengers, accidentally fell down from the running train at Churu railway station and suffered multiple grievous injuries, which ultimately proved fatal and he died during treatment at D.B. Hospital, Churu. It was further stated by the claimants that Shri Manoharlal was a bonafide passenger and the alleged railway journey ticket, which Shri Manoharlal was in possession at the material time was lost during the course of incident.
3. The Tribunal vide its judgment dated 1.11.2021 allowed the claim application filed by the claimants and awarded a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of judgment till actual payment. Hence, this civil misc. appeal has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Railways submits that the deceased Shri Manoharlal was not a bonafide passenger of the train at the relevant time in view of Section 2(29) readwith Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 as no ticket was recovered from his possession. The burden lies on the claimants to prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and not on the Railways.
5. Heard. Considered.
6. In the case of Union of India Versus Rina Devi, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 507, it has been held by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
"17.4 However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances."
7. In the case of Union of India Versus Hari Narayan Gupta and Anr. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 839/1997); decided on 15.11.2006, it has been held by the Coordinate Bench of this Court that:
"11. The burden of proving a person guilty lies on the State or on instrumentality of the State. Since the Railway Administration is an instrumentality of the State, obviously the burden of proving that the passenger was travelling ticketless and, hence, was not a bonafide passenger lies on the Railway Administration."
8. From the material on record, it transpires that after falling down from the train, Shri Manoharlal was immediately shifted to Hospital for treatment by the Police. Meaning thereby, no extensive search was made on the person of the injured (now the deceased) or at the site of incident. Further, the injured (now the deceased), was handled at various stages by different agencies and under such circumstances, the possibility of losing a ticket, which is a small piece of paper, cannot be ruled out, particularly in the absence of any concrete evidence in rebuttal from the side of the appellant-Railways. The appellant-Railways has failed to discharge the burden of proof which was cas
