Tulsi Das vs Union Of India

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J

The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the impugned judgment dated 03.01.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench,  Delhi (hereinafter the “Tribunal”) in Claim  Application No.  OA  II(u) No.  93/2017, whereby the claim application filed by the appellant seeking injury compensation was dismissed.

The case of the appellant before the Tribunal was that he had boarded Train No. 12920 (Malwa Express) from Sonipat Railway Station on 25.03.2015  for  travelling  to  Jhansi,  on  the  strength  of  a  valid  second-class journey ticket. It was his case that, due to heavy rush in the train, he accidentally fell between Sonipat and New Delhi Railway Stations, resulting in grievous injuries leading to amputation of both hands below the elbow.

Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment contending that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim application by holding that the appellant was not a bona fide passenger and that the injuries were not the result of an untoward incident. It was submitted that the appellant  deposed  that  he  had  purchased  a  valid  journey  ticket,  which  was lost  at  the  time  of  the  said  incident.  Reliance  was  placed  upon  the  decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 to contend that mere non-recovery of a ticket cannot be determinative of being a bona fide passenger.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the Tribunal rightly rejected the appellant’s claim in view of the inconsistencies in his statements. It was submitted that there was  an unexplained time  gap between the alleged time of fall and the receipt of information by the police, which renders the appellant’s version wholly improbable. It was also contended that no journey ticket was recovered during jamatalashi, and the explanation regarding  its loss is unconvincing,  particularly when  other  belongings  were recovered intact. In these circumstances,  it was submitted that the appellant failed to discharge the initial burden of proving bona fide travel and the occurrence of an untoward incident.

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

In the backdrop of the above facts, the two issues that arise for consideration  before  this  Court  are  that,  whether  the  appellant  was  a bona fide passenger and whether the injuries were sustained in an “untoward incident” as defined under the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the“Act”).

Coming to the issue as to whether the incident can be described as an“untoward incident”, pertinently, the Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the appellant’s testimony with regard to the place of occurrence of the incident. While the appellant claimed that he fell near Sadar Bazar, the MLC prepared at Lok Nayak Hospital records the place of incident as Platform No. 10 of the Old Delhi Railway Station. Admittedly, the said train does not pass through the Old Delhi Station and instead runs via New Delhi Railway Station. Therefore, the inconsistency between the alleged place of occurrence of the incident, and as recorded in the medical record, goes to the root of the matter and casts serious doubt on the appellant’s version of bona fide travel.

Further, as per DD No. 3-A dated 26.03.2015, recorded at the Old Delhi  Railway Station,  the  information  regarding  the  incident  was  received at  about  1:30  am,  whereas the  appellant’s case is that  the incident occurred in the evening hours at about 18:30 hours, when the train would have crossed the Sadar Bazar section. This reflects a gap of nearly 7 hours between  the  alleged  time  of  the  incident  and  the  receipt  of  information  by the police, and thereafter admitting him to the hospital, making it difficult to accept that a person sustaining such serious injuries would  have remained unattended  for such a prolonged period  and survived. The said  unexplained delay, particularly in a case involving grievous injuries of such a nature which resulted in double amputation of both the hands, is a significant circumstance which cannot be overlooked.

In  the  present  case,  as  noted  above,  the  foundational  facts  relating  to the  manner  of  occurrence  remain  unsubstantiated,  and  the  claim  cannot  be brought within the fold of an “untoward incident”. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly concluded that the alleged occurrence does not fall within the definition of an “untoward incident” under the Act.

In light of the reasoning given in the impugned order and the submissions put forth, I do not find force in the merits of the contentions and hence, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.