Union of India vs Smt. Sunita Rani

This is an appeal against the judgment dated 18.07.2013

passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh,

vide which the claim application filed by the respondent was allowed and

the Railway was ordered to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation with simple

interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application i.e.

18.01.2012 till the date of the passing of the judgment. The Railway was

allowed 60 days time to make payment, failing which the respondent was

entitled to simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the passing of

the judgment i.e. 18.07.2013 till its realization.

As per the case of the applicant-respondent, Vijay Kumar was

travelling in a train from Saharanpur to Ambala on the intervening night of

25/26.07.2011. When the train reached Dukheri, Vijay Kumar fell down

from the train and died.

The Railway in the written statement took the plea that the

deceased was not a bonafide passenger. No ticket was recovered from the

dead body. However, a mobile phone, cash of Rs. 30/- and a piece of paper

having some contact number were recovered from him. It is also claimed

that as per postmortem report, the injuries found on the dead body are self

inflicted injuries while unauthorized crossing over the railway track. It is

stated that the place where the dead body was recovered is near the Samadhi

of Peer Baba. Therefore, it is a case of unauthorized crossing of railway

track. From the pleadings, the following issues are famed:

"1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger at the time of incident? 2. Whether the incident is covered within ambit of section 123(c)(2) read with section 124-A of the Railways Act? 3. Whether the applicant(s) is/are the sole dependents of the deceased in this case? 4. Relief.

The Tribunal after recording the evidence of both the parties

came to the conclusion that the statement of co-passenger Saroj Bala is

reliable to the effect that a ticket was purchased by the deceased. It was held

that the deceased fell down from the train. The claim of the UOI was that

Saroj Bala was produced by way of additional evidence and is not

dependable witness.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also

carefully gone through the case file.

Admittedly, in this case from the personal search of the

deceased, a mobile phone, cash of Rs. 30/- and one piece of paper were

recovered. The intimation by the Station Master, Ambala Cantt. to S.H.O.

GRP, Ambala Cantt. shows that it has been reported by Sh. Singh Ram,

Trackman that one dead body is lying out of the track near line between

Dukheri-Ambala Cantt. at KM No.256/5-7. It goes to show that the dead

body was found outside the railway track.

Now, coming to the injuries, the postmortem report shows

lacerated wound on the left thigh and knee joint with crushing bones and

muscles. There was an injury on the forehead. There was a fracture on the

right shoulder and the multiple abrasions. From the injuries,only one

conclusion can be drawn that it is a case of fall from the train and not a case

where one is hit by the running train. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by

the Tribunal is correct that the deceased fell from the train.

So far as the statement of Saroj Bala is concerned, though she

was produced by way of additional evidence but the mere fact that she was

produced by way of additional evidence is no ground to disbelieve her

statement. Saroj Bala belongs to Village Kandla, Tehsil Shamli and District

Muzaffarpur, whereas the applicant belongs to Raipur Rani, Tehsil and

District Panchkula. Saroj Bala has stated in her examination-in-chief that

she had purchased a ticket from Kandhla to Saharnpur and boarded the train

along with Vijay Kumar and her grandson Harsh @ Kaka. After reaching

Saharanpur, they got down from the train and went to the ticket counter to

purchase two tickets for onward journey to Ambala Cantt. Saroj Bala was

standing near the counter with her grandson Harsh @ Kaka and gave Rs. 50/-

to Vijay Kumar to purchase two tickets for herself and Vijay Kumar.

Thereafter, Vijay Kumar purchased two tickets. The age of Harsh @ Kaka

was 7 years and she was told that no ticket is required to be purchased for

him.

I am of the view that the Tribunal after going through

examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the witnesses held that a

valid ticket was purchased by the deceased. Though a mobile phone, cash of

Rs. 30/- and a piece of paper are stated to have been recovered from the

personal search of deceased Vijay Kumar but the nature of injuries shows

that after fall from the train, the deceased violently fell on the ground and in

this process, the possibility of loss of ticket is there. Therefore, there is no

ground to differ with the finding recorded by the Tribunal believing the

statement of Saroj Bala that a valid ticket was purchased by the deceased.

Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment

Hon''ble the Supreme Court delivered in "Vinod Kumar Arora v Smt. Surjit

Kaur", 1987 AIR (SC) 2179 as well as in case of "Abubakar Abdul

Inamdar (dead) by LRs. v Harun Abdul Inamdar", 1995(5) SCC 612,

which are regarding rent and succession respectively. The Railway Claims

Tribunal cases are in the nature of inquiry and stand on different footing.

Therefore, I concur with the findings recorded by the Tribunal.

Accordingly, there are no merits in the present appeal and same

is dismissed.