Rakesh @ Raju vs Union Of India

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J

CM APPL. 51620/2019 (Seeking condonation of delay of 922 days in filing the appeal)

By way of  the present  application,  theappellant  seeks  condonation  of delay of 922 days in filing the appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellantsubmits that the appellantbelongs to an economically weaker section and, due to paucity of funds,  was unable to get in contact with a counsel and obtain timely legal advice.

It is further submitted that the appellant had suffered grievous injuries resulting  in  a  permanent  disability,  and  was  undergoing  prolonged  medical treatment and rehabilitation. Owing to his precarious physical condition, coupled with financial constraints, the appellant was not in a position to pursue legal remedies within the prescribed period.

It is noteworthy that in“Mohsina vs. Union of India” (2017) SCC OnLine Del 10003, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court condoned a delay of 804 days in filing the appeal, taking into account the weak economic condition of the appellant/ claimant. Similarly, this Court in “Shalini Gihar vs. Union of India” (2023) SCC OnLine Del 3193, allowed the application, and a delay of 1122 days was condoned, considering the financial hardship of the appellants and the surrounding circumstances.

The Railways Act, 1989 and the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 ariseout of beneficial and social welfare legislation intended to provide compensation to victims of railway accidents and untoward incidents. In such matters, a liberal and justice-oriented approach is required while considering applications for condonation of delay so that genuine claims are not defeated on technical grounds.

Considering  the  peculiar  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  present  case, and guided by the principle laid down in the  aforesaid decisions, as well as the  beneficial  nature  of  the concerned legislation,  this Court  finds that  the appellant  has  been  able  to  show  sufficient  cause  for  the  delay  in  filing  the present appeal.

In  view  of  the  aforesaid,  the  application  is  allowed and  the  delay  of 922 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

The application is disposed of accordingly.

FAO 476/2019

The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the impugned judgment dated 17.02.2017 passed  bythe  Railway  Claims  Tribunal,  Principal  Bench,  Delhi  (hereinafter the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application OA II(u) No. 195/2015,whereby the claim application filed by the appellant seeking injury compensation was dismissed.

The case of the appellant, in brief, is that on 20.06.2015, while travelling from Old Delhi Railway Station towards Shahdara by a passenger train, he allegedly fell from the train near Red Fort due to a sudden jerk and sustained grievous injuries, resulting in amputation of both the legs.

Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment contending that  the  Tribunal  erred  in  rejecting  the claimwhile overlooking the material on record. It was submitted that the injuries sustained by the appellant, including amputation of both legs, stand duly established from the medical record. Learned counsel further contended that the appellant had discharged the initial burden by producing the Monthly Season Ticket (MST) bearing No. 11ZQB9P194, and the  minor discrepancies in the name ought not to have been given undue weight, particularly in a beneficial legislation.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned  judgment  and  submitted  that  the  appellant  failed  to  establish  the foundational  requirement  of  being  a  bona  fide  passenger.  It  was  contended that  the  MST  relied  upon  does  not  belong  to  the  appellant,  inasmuch  as  it has been issued in a different name and bears inconsistent particulars. Learned counsel further submitted that the discrepancies in the name and age of the appellant across the MST and the contemporaneous medical record, including the MLC, go to the root of the identity of the claimant.

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

Insofar as the occurrence of an “untoward incident” is concerned, the record reflects that the injured was brought to the hospital as an accident case and the MLC prepared at Lok Nayak Hospital records grievous injuries, including amputation. The DD entry No. 20A dated 20.06.2015 recorded at Old Delhi, also notes information regarding an injured person found near the railway track and being taken for medical assistance. The said contemporaneous record establishes the factum of an accident and the nature of injuries sustained, and furthermore, having regard to the contemporaneous record, the occurrence of an “untoward” incident is assumed in favour of the appellant.

The principal question, however, is whether the appellant has been able to establish that he was travelling as a bona fide passenger. In this regard, the appellant has relied upon the MST bearing No. 11ZQB9P194 to assert that he was travelling with a valid authority,  and a perusal of the said MST shows that it has been issued in the name  ofRaju. However, a perusal of the record shows that two other MSTs have been placed on record, and one of them clearly reflects the name  Raj Kumar. The presence of different names in the MST documents itself creates a serious doubt as to the identity of the person, to whom, the relied MST pertains. Further, the age reflected in the MST, i.e.,35 years, does not correspond with the age emerging from the medical  record,  including  the  MLC  prepared  at  the Lok  Nayak  Hospital  at the time of admission, the Aadhaar card of the appellant and the identity card issued by the Election Commission of India, which records the present age as 38 years (25 years as on 01.01.2012), as well as the permanent disability certificate, which records the age as 28 years and the claim application, wherein the age of the appellant is recorded as 27 years. The government records, being prepared at the first point of contact and in ordinary course of law, carry significant evidentiary value. Although reliance has been placed on a certificate issued by the local MLA to contend that  the names belong to  the same individual,  the said certificate  does  not address  or  reconcile  the  discrepancy in  age  reflected  across  the  documents. Therefore, the inconsistency in the MST records, coupled with the mismatch in age across documents, goes to the root of the matter and renders the linkage between the appellant and the MST unreliable.

The  explanation  offered  is  that  the  name  was  mistakenly recorded  as incorrect at the time of the issuance of the MST, however, such an explanation, in the considered view of this Court, does not inspire confidence. Furthermore, no material has been placed on record to demonstrate  that  any  request  for  the  correction  was  ever  made,  or  that  the issuing authority committed any such error.In the absence of any supporting material, the plea of incorrect recording remains a vague assertion and cannot be accepted to bridge the discrepancy. The reliance placed on the decision in  Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572 is misplaced, as the said judgment proceeds on the premise that the claimant is able to discharge the initial burden of establishing bona fide travel, whereas, in the present factual matrix, the initial burden itself is not satisfied.

The inconsistency in name, coupled with the mismatch in age and the absence of any reliable explanation or corroborative material,does not support the appellant’s version of bona fide travel,  and once  the appellant fails to establish his status as a bona fide passenger, the claim under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 cannot be sustained.

In view of the foregoing and in light of the reasoning given in the impugned order, I do not find  any merit  in the contentions of the appellant. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.