Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1878 (ALL)

Union of India v. Brijendra Singh

2011-08-04

DEVI PRASAD SINGH, SATISH CHANDRA

body2011
Satish Chandra, J.;- 1. List revised. None appears on behalf of the respondents. Heard Sri Pratul Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1989, has been preferred against the Award dated 3.9.2008, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow in Case No.O.A.0300296. 3. The claimant on 24.7.2003, along with his son having a ticket, was travelling in Train No.2308 DN Jodhpur-Hawrah Exp. The claimant boarded the train at Agra Fort for Kanpur Central. In the same Train, Sunil Kumar and Mukesh were also travelling who became witness of the accident in question. When the train was running between Panki and Govindpuri Railway Station, the deceased Sonu Yadav fell down from the train because of sudden jerk. 4. The claim petition was filed before the Tribunal. The sudden fall of the deceased was supported by the evidence of witness travelling in the same train. The deceased fell down from the train because of sudden jerk in overcrowded compartment. When the train slowed down, Mukesh and Sunil Kumar co-passengers came down from the train. At the time when they reached near the deceased, the deceased succumbed to injuries. 5. The Tribunal relied upon the statements of Mukesh and Sunil Kumar as well as considered the Panchayatnama, post mortem report and other documents. 6. On behalf of the appellant, defence was taken that deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the incident falls within the exception of Section 123 (C) (2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. There appears to be no evidence laid by the appellant to claim the benefit of exception provided under Section 124-A of the Act. 7. In the case reported in 2009 (27) LCD 240: Smt. Akhtari. Vs. Union of India, after considering the catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme court and this Court, it has been held that whenever a person falls down from moving train because of sudden jerk, ordinarily, there shall be presumption with regard to bona fide passenger, and the Railway shall be liable to pay compensation. The presumption shall also be available with regard to travelling of train with ticket. It has further been held by the Division Bench that the presumption is rebuttable and in case Railway proves otherwise, then a different view may be taken. The presumption shall also be available with regard to travelling of train with ticket. It has further been held by the Division Bench that the presumption is rebuttable and in case Railway proves otherwise, then a different view may be taken. In the present case, nothing has been brought on record to establish that the appellant Railway has laid some evidence to make out the case covered by the provisions under Section 124-A of the Act to lead evidence. In absence of evidence of the appellant, the finding of Tribunal, cannot be faulted. The Tribunal believed the affidavit filed by the claimant that the deceased was travelling with ticket bearing Ticket No.A-52469520. The finding recorded by the Tribunal does not seem to suffer from perversity or impropriety or illegality. 8. The appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed. The interim order if any, stands discharged.