Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1663 (ALL)

Union of India v. Urmila Devi and Others

2012-07-25

DEVI PRASAD SINGH, VISHNU CHANDRA GUPTA

body2012
Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J.— Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. The instant appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been preferred against the impugned award dated 10th August, 2007 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow. The deceased Shyam Babu was traveling from New Delhi to Phaphamau Jn. (Allahabad) by Purusottam Express train on 30/31.5.2000 after purchasing a second class journey ticket No. B 7340937. He accidentally fell down from the train between Kansapur to Malva railway station and sustained grievous injuries. He was carried to District Hospital, Fatehpur at 9.05 a.m. on 31.5.200 by G.P.R. C. No. 458, Munna Lal, Fatehpur. He was attended by E.M.O., Fatehpur. Later on, he was admitted in Priti Hospital, Allahabad by his family members and during treatment he succumbed to his injuries on 3.7.2000. The claimant Smtu. Urmila Devi being the widow of deceased Late Shyam Babu, has claimed compensation of Rs. 5.0 lacs while preferring the claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow. The tribunal had framed the following issues, while adjudicating the controversy:- 1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question ? 2. Whether incident of death of the deceased falls under the ambit of an untoward incident as defined U/S 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 ? 3. Whether applicant is sole dependent of the deceased ? 4. To what relief ? The tribunal recorded a finding that deceased was bonafide passenger of the train and he was accidentally fell down from the train. The incident is covered by provisions of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and accordingly awarded the compensation of Rs. 4 lacs. While assailing the impugned order learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and he fell down from the train in question because of his own fault. The tribunal had recorded a finding that the deceased was bonafide passenger having journey ticket No. B 7340937 of the same date for the train in question. Relying upon various pronouncements, the tribunal had recorded that presumption may be drawn U/S 114 of the Evidence Act to the effect that deceased was a bonafide passenger, more so, when specific plea has been taken with regard to passenger ticket. Relying upon various pronouncements, the tribunal had recorded that presumption may be drawn U/S 114 of the Evidence Act to the effect that deceased was a bonafide passenger, more so, when specific plea has been taken with regard to passenger ticket. The tribunal noted that railway has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence to rebut the averments contained in the plaint. While considering the ambit and scape of Section 123 (c) (2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, the tribunal held that there is nothing on record to reveal that the case falls within the exception of Section 124-A of the Act. Copy of the ticket has been filed by the claimant, which has not been disputed by the Railway. Petition filed based on the accident in question has not been denied by the appeal by adducing evidence to claim benefit of the provisions of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act. Attention of this court has been drawn to the Division Bench judgment of this court reported in 2009 LCD page 240 (Smt. Akhtari Vs. Union of India), where the provisions contained in Section 124-A has been dealt with and it has been held that the burden of proof that a person suffered in the accident occurred due to fault of the passenger lies on the shoulder of the railways. Otherwise also we are of the view that in case a plea is taken that a person died in the accident while travelling in train and prima-facie material put forth by the claimant before the tribunal then burden shall shift on the railways to establish that the case falls under the exception provided under Section 124-A of the Act but the same has not been discharged by the railways. There is no evidence on record which may establish that the accident is the outcome of suicide or it suffered by the deceased because of his own criminal act or he was under intoxication or because of unconscious he fell down. Benefit of proviso to Section 124-A of the Act shall not be available in case the railway failed to discharge its obligation to prove the exception by leading evidence. In view of above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Benefit of proviso to Section 124-A of the Act shall not be available in case the railway failed to discharge its obligation to prove the exception by leading evidence. In view of above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall deposit the entire compensation in terms of award within two months before the tribunal. Tribunal shall release the same to the claimant say within a period of one month. _____________