KRISHNA DEVI AND ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

This first appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims

Tribunal Act, 1987, impugns the judgment of the Railway Claims

Tribunal dated 5.2.2015 by which the Railway Claims Tribunal has

dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants, seeking

compensation for the death, in an untoward incident of fall from the

train, of their son Mangu.

The facts of the case as pleaded by the appellants are that

the deceased Mangu was travelling from New Delhi to Bhatinda by

Punjab Mail on 1.9.2010 and he died on account of accidental fall

from the train between Budhlada Railway Station and Datewas

Railway Station in Punjab.

3.(i) It is settled law, and which is clear from Section 123(c) of

the Railways Act, 1989 that, before compensation is granted, it must

be established/proved that the deceased was a bonafide passenger.

Bonafide passenger means a person who is travelling in a train by

purchasing a valid ticket. In the present case Railway Claims Tribunal

has by the impugned judgment dismissed the claim petition filed, inter

alia, on the ground that no train ticket has been filed and proved on

record and also that the only person who accompanied the deceased

one Sh. Sheeshpal, and who gave his statement Ex.AW1/8 to the

police, was not called for evidence.

(ii) No doubt, in law, it is not that in every case train ticket is

necessarily to be proved, however, each case depends upon its own

facts, and the courts have to examine/scrutinize the facts of each case

in order to decide whether in spite of the fact that no train ticket is

found or recovered from the person of the deceased, whether the

deceased was a bonafide passenger.

In the present case, in my opinion, Railway Claims

Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased was not a bonafide

passenger because it was found that as per the inquest report

Ex.AW1/7 only a pocket diary was recovered from the deceased and

nothing else was recovered. Surely, if a pocket diary can be recovered

from the person of the deceased, then if the deceased was travelling

after purchasing a valid ticket, even that ticket would have been found

on the person of the deceased. In any case, once two views are

possible and the view taken by the Railway Claims Tribunal is not in

any manner illegal or perverse in the facts of the present case, then this

Court would not like to interfere with the findings of the Railway

Claims Tribunal that the deceased Mangu was not a bonafide

passenger as no train ticket is proved for the travel of the deceased

Mangu from New Delhi to Bhatinda.

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the

deceased Mangu along with a co-passenger Sh. Sheeshpal who gave

his statement Ex.AW1/8 to the police were bonafide passengers and

that this Court should take into account the statement of Sh. Sheeshpal

Ex.AW1/8 to the police stating that it was the deceased who had

purchased the tickets and which tickets were with him both for the

deceased as also for Sh. Sheeshpal, however I cannot agree with this

argument for two reasons. Firstly, Sh. Sheeshpal was not produced in

court on behalf of the appellants and therefore he was not subjected to

the test of cross-examination with the fact that no reasons have been

given by the appellants for non-production of Sh. Sheeshpal. The

second reason is that even if Sh. Sheeshpal had come he would have

only deposed that the tickets were with the deceased Mangu, however,

no tickets were recovered from the person of the deceased.

Therefore, in my opinion, in the case such as the present

it is not possible to come to the conclusion that the deceased had

necessarily purchased a ticket and that he necessarily was a bonafide

passenger travelling after purchasing a valid ticket.

There is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby

dismissed.