Back
2023 Supreme(MP) 1025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J.
ACHAL S/o PYARELAL AHIRWAR – Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
Misc. Appeal No. 4677 of 2022
Decided On : 12-12-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Aparna Singh.
For the Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Jain.
Claimants must prove bona fide passenger status and that an incident is untoward under the Railways Act to receive compensation.
Headnote:(A) Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Section 16 - Appeal against dismissal of claim application for compensation due to injury in train accident - Claimant failed to prove he was a bona fide passenger or that the incident was an untoward incident as defined under section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. (Paras 1, 6, 10, 18, 20)
(B) Evidence - Burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish both bona fide passenger status and occurrence of an untoward incident as per statutory definitions. (Paras 12, 18)
Facts of the case:
The claimant sustained injury from falling off a moving train, claiming compensation while the railway contended he was not a bona fide passenger and the incident was not an untoward incident. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The claimant did not produce a valid ticket, and evidence suggested a conspiracy to incapacitate him, leading to the injury. (Paras 8, 20)
Issues: Whether the claimant was a bona fide passenger and whether the incident constituted an untoward incident under the Railways Act. (Paras 6, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the claimant's failure to prove passenger status and the nature of the incident led to the dismissal of the claim. (Paras 18, 20)
Result: Appeal dismissed; the Tribunal's decision upheld. (Paras 21)
JUDGMENT :
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment dated 1-9-2022 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, by which, the claim application filed by the applicant-claimant under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1987”) has been dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrived before the Railway Claims Tribunal (in short “RCT”).
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal can be summarized that on 8-6-2018, the injured-claimant purchased a second class travel ticket from Sagar to Khurai while he was sitting near ticket counter along with his other co-passengers. At that time, Rajkumar Ahirwar and Prashant Rajak came there. The Prashant Rajak earlier left the train by Bina Express. Rajkumar and claimant himself boarded a general coach when he was near the gate Rajkumar went inside, thereafter, train started after leaving Sagar Station due to sudden jolting of the train he could not maintain his balance and fell down from the moving train near Rahatgarh Railway Station due to which his right hand was cut above the elbow due to the train accident and after the incident the railway staff/Railway Protection Force Sagar taken him to District Hospital Sagar for treatment in a 108 Ambulance from where he has been given first aid and shifted to Bundelkhand Medical College Sagar for treatment, later he was shifted to Sagarshree Hospital, Sagar and he has given a report and same has been registered a case in Crime No. 0193/2018 by Sagar Police under sections 328, 326, 307, 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and in the FIR Rajkumar Ahirwar and Prasant Kumar Rajak were shown them as an accused an investigation taken place. Due to incident his travel ticket, college bag, luggage etc. were lost.
4. That the claimant-injured filed an application claiming compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- before the RCT due to an untoward incident as he was a bona fide passenger on account of injury sustained by him in the train accident.
5. That the respondent railway contended the claim by filing written statement denying the case to be an untoward incident within the meaning of section 123(c) of the Railway Act, further contended that the claimant is not at all a bona fide passenger and he was not found a travel ticket, further contended that after the incident Investigation Officer submitted a written report to the GRP/Sagar stating that on 8-6-2018 the claimant came to Sagar Station to go Khurai by Kshipra Express, they are known friends Rajkumar Ahirwar and Prashant Rajak met him. Due to train being late all three of them entered in the passenger compartment of Sagar Station then Rajkumar took out a small bottle perfume from his bag put it on a white towel and applied it on the nose and mouth of the claimant due to which he became unconscious and when he regained conscious in the hospital, he found that his right hand was cut and the said report registered in FIR as Crime No. 0193/2018 for the offences under sections 328, 326, 307, 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code against Rajkumar Ahirwar and Prashant Rajak and took up the investigation. Further contended that the incident does not comes under section 124-A of Railways Act and, therefore, the claim petition filed by the claimant liable to be rejected on the ground that the injured was not a bona fide passenger and there were no untoward incident and he prays to dismiss claim petition.
6. The learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of rival pleadings framed the following issues:
“1. Whether the applicant proves that he was a bona fide passenger of the train in question when the alleged untoward incident occurred?
2. Whether the applicant proves that the alleged untoward incident falls within the meaning of section 123(c)(2) read with section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989?
3. Whether the applicant proves that he has suffered injuries as alleged?
4. Whether the respond
