Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2418 (ALL)

Union of India v. Beero

2011-10-17

DEVI PRASAD SINGH, SATISH CHANDRA

body2011
Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra, J.: - Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. The instant appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been preferred against the impugned award dated 22.01.2009 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow in O.A. No. 0500241. In brief, the dispute giving rise to the present appeal relates to an accident occurred on 31.01.2005. The deceased Satendra along with Ram Pal have boarded the Train from Devband to reach their destination at Khatauli. The deceased has purchased a ticket for second class journey before boarding the Train. When the Train reached between Mansoorpur-Khatauli Railway station, because of sudden jerk, the deceased fell down and succumbed to injuries on the spot. FIR was lodged and during the course of recovery of body, nothing was found from the possession of the deceased which includes cash, bag and purse etc. The claimant approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation in pursuance to power conferred by section 123-A of the Act. While assailing the impugned award, solitary argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that deceased was not possessing any ticket at the time of accident. Hence he is not a bonafide passenger. Further submission of the appellant's counsel is that the case falls within the exception of section 124-A of the Railways Act. It has not been disputed that cash, purse and bag were missing from the possession of the deceased at the time of recovery of body. Accordingly, it has been pleaded on behalf of the claimants that either the ticket was fell down during the course of accident or it has been taken away by someone along-with cash. It is not disputed that the deceased was travelling in the train and during the course of journey, he fell down because of sudden jerk. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the cases reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527 , Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others; 2011 (29) LCD 50, Union of India v. Gulam Mohammad; and 2009 (27) LCD 240, Smt. Akhtari v. Union of India. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the cases reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527 , Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others; 2011 (29) LCD 50, Union of India v. Gulam Mohammad; and 2009 (27) LCD 240, Smt. Akhtari v. Union of India. It is trite law that in case a person suffered with an accident, there shall be presumption that he or she was a bonafide passenger and burden to prove with regard to unauthorized passenger shall shift on the shoulder of the railways. Admittedly, in the present case, the appellant had not lead any evidence to substantiate the allegation that the deceased was not having a valid ticket or he boarded the train without any ticket. Once the deceased fell down from the train because of sudden jerk, then ordinarily in such situation, there is a possibility with regard to misplacement of ticket. Moreover, in the present case, nothing was recovered from the deceased, which reveals that cash or articles possessed by the deceased might have been taken by someone at the time of recovery of body. Attention of the court has not been invited by the appellant's counsel that some evidence was led to establish that before boarding the train, deceased has not purchased the ticket. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent has specifically pleaded that before boarding the Train, the deceased had purchased a ticket, which have been verified by one Ram Pal. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondent deals with the question raised by the appellant's counsel, whereby it has been ruled that person travelling in a train shall deemed to be a bonafide passenger unless rebutted by cogent trustworthy evidence. Specific pleading on record with regard to purchase of ticket has not been rebutted by the appellant by leading evidence. So far as argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the case falls within the exception provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, also seems to be not sustainable in view of the fact that appellant had not led any evidence to establish that the accident falls within the exception of Section 124-A of the Act. So far as argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the case falls within the exception provided under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, also seems to be not sustainable in view of the fact that appellant had not led any evidence to establish that the accident falls within the exception of Section 124-A of the Act. In case, the appellant claims or raised plea under the exception of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, the burden was on the appellant to lead evidence to claim the benefit of Section 124-A of the Act. In view of above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award. The appeal is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.