Mahendra vs Union Of India

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J

CM APPL. 51677/2019 (Seeking condonation of delay of 175 days in filing the appeal)

By way of the present application, the applicant/ appellant seeks condonation of delay of 175 days in filing the appeal.

Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  has  submitted  that  after  passing  of the impugned judgment, the appellant could not file the present appeal in time on account of paucity of funds and the resultant inability to obtain timely legal advice. It is further submitted that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate.

In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of this Court  in Mohsina vs. Union of India (2017) SCC OnLine Del 10003, wherein  a delay  of 804  days in filing  of  the appeal was condoned taking into account the socio-economic condition of the claimants, and the beneficial object of the legislation.

Having considered the submissions made and the view of the decision in Mohsina (supra), and keeping in view the beneficial nature of the legislation, this Court is satisfied that the appellant has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present appeal.

Accordingly,  the  application  is  allowed  and  the  delay of  175  days  in filing the appeal is condoned.

The application is disposed of in the above terms.

FAO 477/2019

The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 06.03.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(U)/145/2018, whereby the  claim  application  filed  by  the  appellant  seeking statutory  compensation on account of injuries sustained was dismissed.

The case of the appellant before the Tribunal was, that on 01.04.2018, he was travelling from Palam to Rewari by Train No. 54417 (Rewari Passenger Train) on the strength of a valid journey ticket. It was stated that upon reaching Jataula Jodi Sampla, the appellant deboarded the train to drink water, and thereafter, while attempting to re-board the train, he accidentally fell down and sustained grievous injuries.

He, thereafter, was taken to Pataudi Hospital where his MLC was prepared, and was subsequently referred to Civil Hospital, Gurgaon.

Learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment contending that the findings returned by the Tribunal are contrary to the material on record. It is submitted that the recovery of a valid journey ticket which was duly verified, clearly establishes his status as a bona fide passenger.  It  is  further  submitted  that the  Tribunal  has  failed  to  appreciate the contemporaneous record, including the MLC, which records the case as a  “railway track accident”, further lends assurance to the version of the appellant.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that the appellant has failed to establish that he was a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident. It is contended that the journey ticket was not produced at the first instance and was allegedly handed over after a delay of two days, which creates doubt regarding its genuineness. Reliance is placed on the DRM report to contend that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the appellant while attempting to board the running train.

This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

In the backdrop of the above, the two questions that arise for consideration are that whether the injuries sustained by the appellant fall within the ambit of an “untoward incident” and whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger at the relevant time.

Insofar as the question of an “untoward incident” is concerned, the Tribunal  has  disbelieved  the  case  of  the  appellant  primarily  on  the  ground that  there  is  no  direct  eye  witness  to  the  alleged  fall  and  that  the  appellant was found on the “off side” of the platform. A perusal of the record, however,  shows  that  the  earliest  version  of  the  incident  emanates  from  the entry  recorded  by  the Station  Master, as  per which,  he upon  hearing cries from  the track side,  deputed Bijender, a pointsman to verify  the situation, and was thereafter informed that an injured person was lying near the railway line. He was not an eye witness to the said incident and merely recorded what was conveyed to him, and consequently, the evidentiary value of such an entry cannot be treated as a direct account of the occurrence. Even otherwise, this account of events does not specify as to on which side of  the  platform,  the  body  deceased  was  found  lying.  Furthermore,  the  said pointsman, who was the first person to reach the spot, has not been examined, and the non-examination of such a material witness assumes significance,  as  he  alone  could  have  deposed  with  respect  to  the  manner  in which the appellant was found and the surrounding circumstances of the occurrence. The absence of his testimony, therefore, leaves a material gap in the case set up by the respondent.

Further, the MLC prepared immediately upon the appellant being taken to the hospital, records the case as that of a “alleged railway accident”, and such record being contemporaneous in nature, carries evidentiary value and lends assurance to the appellant’s version.

It is also not the case of the respondent that the injuries were self- inflicted or that the case falls within any of the exceptions carved out under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. The said factual position, therefore, brings the case within the ambit of an “untoward incident” as defined under the Act.

Secondly, as for the question of bona fide travel, the Tribunal has returned a finding against the appellant primarily on the ground that the journey ticket was handed over after a delay of two days. The record, however, shows that a journey ticket bearing No. 93324412 dated 01.04.2018 was recovered and subsequently verified from the concerned railway  authorities.  The  verification  of  the  ticket  has  not  been  disputed  by the respondent. The mere fact that the ticket was taken into custody after two days, particularly when the appellant had suffered grievous injuries and was undergoing medical treatment, by itself, cannot negate the otherwise established fact that the appellant was travelling on a valid ticket. The Court also takes note of the impugned judgment  wherein reliance has been placed on the appellant’s inability to produce the ticket at the spot, however, he stated that the same would be produced after his treatment. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn and the explanation of the appellant supports his case of bona fide travel.

Once such material is placed on record, the burden shifts upon the Railways to disprove the status of the claimant as a  bona fide passenger. In this  regard  reference  may be  made  to  the  decision  of  the  Hon’ble  Supreme Court  in  Union of India vs. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, wherein  it  has  been  held  that  upon proof  of  a valid  journey ticket,  the  initial  burden  stands  discharged  and  the onus shifts  upon  the  Railways to rebut  the  same.  No such  material,  in  the present case, has been brought on record by the respondent to  show that the said ticket was fabricated or that the appellant was not travelling on the strength of the said ticket.

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 10.04.2026.

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

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