Satya Narayan vs Union Of India

Amar Nath (Kesharwani), J

This Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been preferred against the judgment dated 25/02/2020 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, Bhopal (M. P.) in Claim Case No.OA-IIu/BPL/152/2017, by which the claim petition filed by the appellants under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been rejected on the ground that the appellants have failed to prove that deceased Sunil Yadav was bonafide passenger.

Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by claimants / appellants before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal to get compensation for the death of their son Arvind Namdev in untoward incident, alleging that on 14/08/2016 the deceased, who was unmarried was travelling from Delhi to Jhasi by unknown train holding a valid second class ticket. During the journey he fell down from train near Datia Railway Station due to jerk and sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was brought to District Hospital, Datia by 108 Ambulance, where he was declared dead. The ticket which was held by the deceased, was lost in the incident. In the claim petition claimants claimed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Eight lakhs) as compensation with 18% interest.

The stand of the respondent before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal was that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. It was alleged that as per investigation report, the deceased was trying to alight from thru passing train No.12618 UP Mangla Express and fell down because of own negligent act. No journey ticket was recovered from the body of deceased. Hence, claimants are not entitled for any compensation and prayed for dismissal of petition.

After framing of issues and recording of evidence, Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, present appeal has been filed.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Railway Claims Tribunal has erred in holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as he was not holding the ticket while travelling in the train, but father of deceased Satyanarayan (appellant No.1) has clearly stated on an affidavit before the Railway Claims Tribunal that he talked to his son Arvind (deceased) while he was at Delhi Railway Station and his son told him that he has purchased the ticket from Delhi to Jhasi. It is submitted that the burden to prove that deceased did not purchase the ticket, was on the respondent, but in this regard Railway administration has not examined the book clerk of Delhi Railway station. It is further submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that deceased jumped or fell down from the running train due to his own negligence, so the presumption ought to have been drawn in favour of appellants/claimants that the deceased died in an untoward incident while he was travelling in the train. Learned counsel further submitted that the claimants have proved their case by adducing oral and documentary evidence and respondent has not adduced any evidence in rebuttal. In support of his contentions learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment Raj Kumari & Another Vs. Union of India, 1992 SCC OnLine MP 96 = 1993 ACJ 843 Union of India Vs. Rina Devi, 2018 ACJ 1441 and Kamukayi & Others Vs. Union of India & Others decided on 16/05/2023 in Civil Appeal No.3799 of 2023. On the strength of above submissions, learned counsel prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and to pass the award in favour of appellants as prayed in the claim petition.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased purchased ticket while travelling in the train. It is submitted that father of the deceased himself has stated that he is not the witness to the fact that deceased purchased any ticket before boarding the train. In this regard he drew the attention of this Court towards Para-6 of the impugned judgment. It is submitted that in the DRM Police report dated 15/03/2018, it is mentioned that Police handed over the bag and mobile phone of the deceased, which he was carrying at the time of incident, which proves that Police officials completely searched the deceased's body and clothes, but no ticket was found from the person of deceased, so it can safely be said that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. It is also submitted that the finding of the learned Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of evidence, hence no interference is required and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the rival parties, perused the record and gone through the citations upon which reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant.

It is not disputed in the case that claimants are the parents of deceased Arvind Namdev. It is also not disputed that cause of death of deceased Arvind Namdev is the injuries caused to him due to fall from running Train No.12618 - Mangla Express at Datiya Railway Station. Hence, the only question for consideration in the case is whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger and he expired due to untoward incident as defined in Section 123(c) of the Railway Act, 1989 or deceased himself was negligent about his personal safety and thereby exposed his life to utmost danger which tantamount to self inflicted injury under the exception of Section 124-A of the Railway Act.

Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 provides as under :-

123(c) - “Untoward incident” means –

(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of sec. 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,1987 (28 of 1987), or

(ii) the making of violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or

(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson.

by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station: or

(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.

Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 provides as under :-

124.A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents. – When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or ;the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, not withstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident.

Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to –

(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him:

(b) self-inflicted injury:

(c) his own criminal act:

(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;

(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "passenger" includes -

(i) a railway servant on duty ; and

(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.

Section 154 of the Railways Act, 1989 provides as under :-

Endangering safety of persons traveling by railway by rash of negligent act or omission.- If any person in rash and negligent manner does any act, or omits to do what he is legally bound to do, and the act of omission is likely to endanger the safety of any person traveling or being upon any railway, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine of with both.

It reveals from the record that no valid ticket for travelling from Delhi to Jhansi was found from the body of deceased and from the belongings of deceased, which were found near the body of deceased during investigation. At the time of incident claimants were not accompanied with the deceased, as claimant No.1 Satya Narayan has admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of incident he was not accompanying the deceased. He has further stated that neither he has seen the deceased purchasing the ticket nor boarding train or falling from the train. Claimant No.1 Satya Narayan has also admitted that he has no information how the incident took place. It is also admitted by claimant No.1 Satya Narayan that no ticket was recovered from the body of deceased. Claimants have not examined any other witness in support of their claim. No eyewitness of the incident was examined in the case and no other witness was examined who has seen the deceased purchasing the ticket for travelling from Delhi to Jhansi by Train No.12618-Mangla Express. Hence, there is no evidence on record which can confirm that deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train No.12618-Mangla Express. It is clear in the instant case that deceased died due to fall from Train No.12618-Mangla Express near Datiya Railway Station, while train was in running condition and there is no stoppage of that train. As per inquiry report conducted by RPF 'on 14/08/2016 when train No.12618-Mangla Express was passing in a slow speed from Datiya Station up loop line platform No.2 through signal, at that time deceased tried to get down from the running train and suffered injuries'.

Hence, when there is no stoppage of the train and train was passing from Datiya Railway Station, the deceased himself jumped from the running train, therefore, the act of deceased does not come within the definition of Section 123(c) of Railways Act, 1989 i.e. "untoward incident". It also appears that the act of deceased comes under Section 154 of the Railways Act, 1989, which is a punishable one. Hence, the act of the deceased comes under the provisions of Section 124(A) proviso (C) of the Railways Act, 1989.

So far as judgments of Raj Kumari (supra) and Rina Devi (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants are concerned, conjoint reading of judgments shows that judgment of Raj Kumari (supra) has been overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rina Devi (supra). As regards judgment passed in the case of Kamukayi (supra) relied upon by the appellants is concerned, bare reading thereof reveals that the same is distinguishable on facts of the present case, hence, the same is of no assistance to the appellants.

Hence, it is not proved that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and died due to the injuries sustained from falling accidentally from running train. Since the burden was not discharged by the appellants/claimants, hence there is no question of any rebuttal by the Railway administration. When all these facts are taken into consideration in accumulative manner, there is no error or illegality apparent in the impugned judgment calling for interference by this Court.

Hence, Appeal is hereby dismissed.

Record of the Tribunal be sent back to the concerned Court along with the copy of this order.