Dharamawati vs Union Of India

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J

CM APPL. 7466/2022 (Seeking condonation of delay of 141 days in filing the appeal)

By way of the present application, the applicant/ appellant seeks condonation of delay of 141 days in filing the appeal.

However, in the order dated 10.02.2022, it was observed that in view of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil). No. 3 of 2020 extending the period of limitation, there was no delay in filing the appeal.

Therefore, in view of the above, the present application has been rendered infructuous.

FAO 31/2022

The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 22.03.2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(U)/DLI/71/2021 titled as“Smt. Dharamawati vs. Union of India”.

Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed by the appellant herein on the ground that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger, nor was the alleged incident an “untoward incident” as defined under the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as“the Act”).

The brief facts of the case, as stated in the claim application, are that on 15.06.2018, one Bunty (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was travelling from Tughlakabad to Palwal by a local EMU train on the strength of a valid journey ticket. While the train was running between  Ballabhgarh and  Asaoti Railway Stations, the deceased, due to a jerk,  fell from the train and sustained grievous injuries, to which, he succumbed at the spot.

Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  assails  the  impugned  judgment  by contending that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that the incident in question was an “untoward incident” as defined under the Act. It is submitted that although the journey ticket was not recovered from the body of the deceased, the testimony of AW-2, Mahesh Kumar, the brother-in-law of  the  deceased  establishes  that  the  deceased  undertook  the  journey  on  the strength of a valid ticket, which was purchased by AW-2 for him. It is further submitted that the finding of the Tribunal regarding the body having been  found  after  12  hours  is  misconceived,  as  the  mere  fact  that  the  body was noticed later does not discredit the case of accidental fall from the train. Learned counsel further emphasized that even as  per the DRM report,  the case  of  the  Railways  is  that  the  deceased  fell  from  a  running  train,  though attributing the same to negligence, which is immaterial  and that, such a fall squarely falls within the ambit of an “untoward incident”.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment  by submitting that the deceased was not  a  bona fide  passenger as no ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased, and the dead body was found nearly 12 hours after the alleged fall, which renders the appellant’s version doubtful. It is further submitted that as per the statements recorded during investigation, including that of the brother of the deceased, the deceased was under mental stress due to lack of employment. Reliance is also placed on the inquest report to contend that the injuries sustained were consistent with the deceased having been run over by a train while crossing the railway track and not due to a fall from a running train.

This Court  has heard  the arguments of both the  parties and perused the material on record.

In the backdrop of the above facts, the two issues that arise for consideration are whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger and whether  the alleged  incident was  an “untoward  incident” as  defined  under the Act.

It  is  an  admitted  position  that  no  journey  ticket  was  recovered  from the body of the deceased during jamatalashi. However, as per the settled law in Union of India vs. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, the absence of recovery of a ticket does not negate the claim of the deceased being a bona fide passenger. In the present case, AW-2 has categorically deposed that he had accompanied the deceased to Tughlakabad Railway Station, purchased a journey ticket for him to travel from Tughlakabad to Palwal and made him board the EMU passenger train at about 9:45 PM on 15.06.2018. The said testimony has remained consistent  and  has  not  been  discredited  in  cross-examination.  Even,  AW-1, Dharamawati, the mother of the deceased, has deposed that the deceased had gone to visit his sister and was returning on the said date. In view of the aforesaid, the appellant has been able to discharge the initial burden of establishing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The respondent has failed to rebut the same by placing any cogent evidence on record. The Tribunal, therefore, erred in rejecting the claim solely on the ground of non- recovery of the journey ticket.

Further,  the  respondent  has  sought  to  rely  upon  the  statement  of  the brother of the deceased to contend that the deceased was under mental stress due to lack of employment. This Court finds that the said contention is wholly  inconsequential and that, there is no material on record to suggest that  such  alleged  stress  was  of  such  an  extent  so  as  to  lead  to  any  extreme conduct. There is neither any reference to suicidal tendencies nor any evidence to establish any nexus between such alleged stress and the incident in question. The said circumstance, therefore, cannot be relied upon to discredit the case of the appellant.

Insofar  as  the  manner  of  the  incident  is  concerned,  the  Tribunal  has proceeded  on  the  premise  that  the  deceased  was  run  over  by  a  train  while crossing the railway track, relying upon the inquest report and the opinion of the SHO as well as the conclusion drawn in the GRP investigation. The GRP report, rather suggests that the deceased may have fallen from the train. Further, a perusal of the inquest report shows that the first information regarding the dead body was received on 16.06.2018 at about 9:35 AM, when an unknown body was found lying near the UP main line between Ballabgarh  and  Asaoti  Railway  Stations  at  Km  No.  1494/9-7.  The  opinion recorded therein, notes that the death occurred due to injuries sustained in a railway  accident  and  that  the  possibility  of  such  injuries  being  caused  in  a“railway accident cannot be ruled out”. The SHO’s opinion, based on the condition of the body, is not that of an eyewitness account but is only speculative in nature, and thus cannot be treated as conclusive proof.

Significantly, even as per the DRM report, the case of the Railways is that the deceased fell from a running train, though attributing the same to his own negligence. Once the factum of fall from a running train is accepted and the  nature  of  the  incident  stands established,  the  same would  squarely  fall within the ambit of an “untoward incident” as defined under Section 123(c) of  the  Act.  The attribution of negligence  to  the deceased does not  alter  this position,  as,  it  is  well  settled  that  negligence  of  the  victim is  not  a relevant consideration for denying compensation under Section 124-A of the Act. The liability of the Railways in such cases is strict, subject only to the statutory exceptions, none of which are attracted in the present case.

The Tribunal has also placed reliance on the circumstance that the dead  body was  noticed  at  about  9:35  AM  on  the  following  day,  i.e.,  nearly 12 hours after the deceased had boarded the train at about 9:40 - 9:45 PM. In Surendra Verma vs. Union of India 2014 SCC Online Del 2917, it has been held that mere delay in the recovery or discovery of the body cannot, by itself, be a determinative factor to  disbelieve  the case of  accidental  fall,  particularly  in the  absence  of any cogent  evidence  to  the  contrary.  Applying  the  said  principle  to  the  facts  of the present case, the precise time at which the deceased fell from the train is not known, and therefore, the mere fact that the body was noticed after some time cannot lead to an adverse inference against the claimant or discredit the appellant’s version.

Considering the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal, in the present case, adopted an unduly rigid standard of proof, overlooking the beneficial object of the Act and the settled principle that proceedings thereunder are intended to provide prompt and efficacious relief to the victims of railway accidents.

It is well settled that the provisions relating to compensation under Section 124-A of the Act constitute a piece of beneficial legislation and must be construed liberally. In Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 527, the Supreme Court held that once the occurrence of an “untoward incident” is established,  the  liability  of  Railways  is  strict  unless  the  case  falls  within  the statutory exceptions. Similarly, in Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra), it was held that the non-recovery of a ticket is not itself sufficient to defeat a claim for compensation.

In view of the above, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal, which is requested to assess the amount of compensation payable to the appellant in accordance with law and direct the authorities concerned to disburse the same within two months from the receipt of a copy of this order. For this purpose, the matter be listed before the Tribunal at the first instance on 30.03.2026.

The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.

A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Tribunal.