Deepak Chhabra JUDGMENT
Deepak Chhabra, Member (T)
1. The present claim application has been filed by Shri Pardeep Kumar Bose and Smt. Dipali Bose, parents of the deceased under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, seeking compensation of Rupees Eight Lakhs for the death of their son namely Soman Bose @ Sunny in the alleged railway untoward incident. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the claim application are that on 08.09.2013, the deceased was going from New Delhi to Mathura Vrindavan and after purchasing train ticket from New Delhi railway station for going to Mathura in the afternoon, he boarded the train from New Delhi. There was heavy rush in the train and when the train was moving at Palwal railway station, it took a jerk due to which Soman @ Sunny fell down from the running train at Palwal railway station, received multiple injuries and RPF staff got him admitted to general hospital, Palwal from where he was referred to Safdarjung hospital, New Delhi but he succumbed to his injuries and died in the ambulance. GRP Palwal was informed by GH Palwal which reached the spot and conducted inquest proceedings. It has been claimed that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and the journey ticket was lost in the incident.
2. Respondent railway filed the written statement denying and disputing various averments of the claim application. It was submitted by the respondent railway that no such alleged incident causing death of the deceased Soman Bose within the meaning of Section 124-A of the Railways Act read with Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act has taken place on 08.09.2013 at Palwal railway station as such the present claim application is not maintainable. The deceased was not a bona fide passenger of any train as the deceased was not travelling in the train on the day of the incident, moreover, the applicants have not produced any train ticket and even there is no independent eye witness to the alleged incident. The applicants have misled this Court by making false and wrong statement. The whole story is concocted one just to extract money. The injuries, if any, which would have occurred resulting in death of the deceased were due to his own self negligence and criminal act. The applicants have neither annexed the certified copies of the documents relied upon nor any other relevant documents to prove the alleged incident. Rest of the paragraphs were also denied and the claim application was sought to be dismissed.
3. No replication has been filed by the applicant. On examination of the pleadings, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train on the date of incident, as alleged?
2. Whether the alleged incident is covered within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act?
3. Whether the applicant(s) is/are the only dependant(s) of the deceased?
4. Relief.
The parties were given opportunity to prove their case inter-se.
Applicants:
4. The applicants have filed affidavit of Pardeep Kumar Bose s/o. late Shri S.N. Bose, father of the deceased and was also cross-examined before the bench where he reiterated the averments made in the claim application as well as in his affidavit. Besides this, the applicant has filed documents, A-1 to A-19, available on record.
Respondent:
5. The respondent railways have filed DRM's report, which says that after enquiry and perusal of relevant documents, it is found that the deceased died due to his own mistake. He tried to de-board the running train. He got injured and died during treatment. No railway ticket/pass was found with him. He was not a bona fide passenger. The deceased died due to his own carelessness and negligence act for which the respondent railway was not responsible. The respondent railways have filed affidavit of Shri Lakhan Singh Soni s/o. Shri Hari Dass Soni, Station Supdt, Palwal and the witness was examined and cross-examined before the bench.
FINDINGS:
6. Heard arguments from both sides and after perusing the available evidence and evaluating the documents, our findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No. 1.
7. The case of the applicants is that the deceased was going to Mathura Vrindavan from New Delhi and after purchasing train ticket from New Delhi he boarded the train. There was heavy rush in the train and when the train was passing Palwal railway station, it took a jerk due to which he fell down from the running train at Palwal railway station. He sustained multiple serious injuries and was immediately got admitted in general hospital, Palwal by RPF staff but later referred to Safdarjung hospital, New Delhi but he succumbed to his injuries in the way. It was claimed that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and his train ticket was lost in the incident. To prove the case, the applicants have filed GRP papers and affidavit of father of the deceased who was admittedly not travelling with the deceased and had neither seen him purchasing train ticket, boarding the train or falling down from the train. The applicants after filing respondent evidence and DRM's report, had moved a misc. application to amend the claim application claiming that the deceased was travelling from Mathura to New Delhi instead of New Delhi to Mathura but the application was rejected by the Bench keeping in view the circumstances of the case. As per GRP papers, nothing was recovered from the person of the deceased. Section 124A of the Railways Act makes it very clear that only the dependants of a 'passenger' are entitled for compensation, in case of passenger's death while travelling in a train carrying passengers. Death should be result of the 'untoward incident' as have been mentioned in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. Both the terms i.e. 'passenger' and 'untoward incident' have been very clearly defined in the Railways Act. Section 2(29) defines the 'passenger' for the purpose of Railway Claims Tribunal Act as given below:-
'Passenger means a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket'.
8. In this case, the applicant has submitted that the deceased was going to Mathura from New Delhi after purchasing train ticket from New Delhi to Mathura but at the later stage, at the stage of arguments, the applicants moved an application to amend the claim application claiming that the deceased was travelling from Mathura to New Delhi, it means earlier claim of the applicants was false and concocted story only to claim compensation. In the statement of witnesses also, the GRP made a case that the deceased had gone to Vrindavan and died after falling down from some train while coming back to Delhi. The applicants have made a different case earlier and later they tried to amend it after filing of DRM's report by respondent railways. No train ticket or pass or any travel authority was recovered from the person of the deceased. No eye-witness or any documents has been produced by the applicants to prove purchasing of the ticket or possessing of the ticket by the deceased at the time of alleged incident. The applicants have filed affidavit of father of the deceased admitting that he was not accompanying his deceased son and had neither witnessed purchasing the train ticket, boarding the train or falling down from the train. In the claim application also, earlier the applicants claimed that the deceased purchased train ticket from New Delhi to Mathura and boarded train from New Delhi but later they tried to change the case. GRP also made a different case recording statements of various witnesses. All these discrepancies create serious doubt about the travelling of the deceased in any train and happening of the alleged incident specially when there is no document or evidence from applicant side to prove the travelling as well happening of the alleged incident. Even if it is presumed that the deceased was travelling from Mathura to New Delhi, he tried to get down from moving train as said train has no scheduled stoppage at Palwal railway station and the train was passing run through at high speed. As per DRM's report, the deceased tried to de-board from train No. 18507 which had no scheduled stoppage at Palwal railway station and the train was passing run-through when the deceased tried to get down from the moving train, became victim of the incident and died due to his own negligence and criminal act which was certainly a dare-devil effort on his part for which respondent railway was not responsible. The deceased tried to get down from moving train and became victim of the incident as no train ticket was recovered from the person of deceased and the story put forward by the applicant is false, fabricated and concocted one without any proof. Merely saying that the deceased was going to Mathura from New Delhi or vice-versa by train after purchasing of railway ticket without any supporting evidence, does not prove the bona fidy of the deceased. It is also pertinent to mention here that no train ticket was recovered in jamatalashi of the deceased which shows that he was not travelling or going anywhere as it is hard to believe that a person who is travelling in a train will not have any luggage or any cash in his pocket. No person is expected to undertake a journey, without some necessary papers and equipment like purse, mobile or some cash etc.
9. Mere availability of injured/dead-body in a railway yard does not per-se prove that the dead-body is of a passenger who was travelling in a train. In case of loss of ticket, as has been mentioned in the claim application itself by the applicant, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held in case titled as Union of India Vs. Lakshmi & Others, MANU/KA/0705/2013 : 2014 ACJ 2505 which says:-
'The relevant provisions of Railways Act are very clear, in that, if a person suffers injury or death in an untoward incident as contemplated under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, he/his family members is/are entitled to seek compensation provided he is a bona fide passenger with valid ticket. That means, either on his body or in his possession such ticket should be found at the time of accident, which is valid for journey in that particular train for that particular day. If that is not found, then the reasonable presumption is that he was travelling without valid ticket'.
10. Even in case of loss of ticket, the purchasing of ticket has to be established. In case of Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India, FAO No. 1023 of 2010 dated 28.08.2010, Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) observed as under:-
'True, may be in certain cases, the ticket of bona fide passenger is lost, snatched or taken away by some criminal and unscrupulous persons but there cannot be a presumption that the ticket of every deceased necessarily is taken out or it is lost or mutilated. In case ticket is not found from the body of the deceased or from its vicinity, the presumption would be that such a person was not a bona fide traveller, of course, evidence can be led to prove otherwise'.
11. In this case no supporting evidence has been produced by the applicant to prove that the deceased was having a valid train ticket and was travelling in some train. Keeping in view the above discussions and documents, the Bench is of the opinion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of any train at the time of incident. The issue is decided against the applicants.
Issue No. 2.
12. The GRP in this case came in the picture only after information was received from the hospital authorities and had examined some witnesses. Though in all the GRP papers, it has been concluded that the deceased died due to falling down from the train but how and on which basis, the GRP reached the conclusion, has not been made clear. It seems the GRP prepared the papers only to help the applicants for the reasons best known to them.
13. Untoward incident has been clearly defined under Section 123(c)(2) which is reproduced below:-
"123(c) 'untoward incident means' (1)(i) the commission?.
(2) 'the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.'"
14. The burden of proof entirely rests on the applicants to prove the untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act. In this connection Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Jamirul Nisha and another V. Union of India, MANU/DE/0391/2008 : 2009, ACJ 1393 has observed that 'From the perusal of Sections 123(c) and 124-A, it is clear that 'sine qua non' for claiming compensation, on account of death or injury sustained in a train accident is that the victim of a train accident, or his dependents as the case may be, must first establish that the victim or the deceased had accidentally fallen from the train?. In the instant case, applicants have failed to establish that the deceased had accidentally fallen from the train.
15. In this case, no corroborating evidence is available to prove the bona fidy of the deceased as no train ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased and merely claiming in the claim application without any proof or eye-witness does not prove the case of the applicants. In GRP proceedings, nothing was recovered from the person of deceased. Admittedly an incident occurred at Palwal railway station but it was an untoward incident, it is not proved by any documents by the applicants. During DRM's enquiry report it has been found that no train ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased and the alleged accident occurred while the deceased was allegedly trying to de-board from a fast moving train while it was passing run-through from Palwal railway station as it had no scheduled stoppage. Certainly the deceased had made a dare-devil effort which is covered under proviso (b) & (c) to Section 124-A of the Railways Act which exonerate the respondent railways to pay compensation. In the light of above discussions and evidences, it is decided that the deceased was not involved in any untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. Issue No. 2 is decided against the applicant.
Issue No. 3.
16. The present claim application has been filed by Pardeep Kumar Bose and Smt. Dipali Bose, parents of the deceased. In the affidavit of AW-1, Pardeep Kumar has simply stated that the deceased the deponent alongwith his wife have filed the claim application for compensation on account of death of his sown named Soman @ Sanny who died on 08.09.2013 due to an untoward incident but nothing has been said or proved about the other family members of the deceased. In these circumstances and in accordance with Section 123(b) of The Railways Act, it is held that the applicants are not the only dependants of the deceased. The issue is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 4.
17. As far as amount of compensation is concerned, Section 124-A lays down that railway administration, in a case of untoward incident, shall be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed in case of death or injury. In pursuance of the aforesaid provision, Railway Accidents & Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 were framed. These have been subsequently amended by Railway Accidents & Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 1997 & 2016. In case of death, a sum of rupees Eight Lac has been prescribed irrespective of the age, earning capacity or status of the deceased. In this case, the applicants have failed to establish the bona fide passenger status of the deceased under section 2(29) of the Railways Act and the case falling within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2), therefore, the applicants are not entitled to receive any compensation from the respondent railway administration and the issue stands decided accordingly against the applicants.
ORDER
18. In view of our findings on the above issues, the present claim application fails and the same is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
19. File be consigned to the record-room.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.