Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1832 (ALL)

Vijay Mehrotra v. Union of India

2013-07-11

SUDHIR KUMAR SAXENA

body2013
JUDGMENT Sudhir Kumar Saxena,J. – This F.A.F.O. under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order dated 24.04.2012 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow, whereby Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. 2. I have heard Sri M.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Pratul Kr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal by Smt. Vijay Mehrotra claiming that she had received serious injuries on 11.12.2007, as such she claimed Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation. Respondent denied the allegation and stated that in fact injuries were not received in accident. 4. Four issues were framed by the Tribunal. While deciding the issue no. 1, Tribunal came to conclusion that since applicant was holding general second class ticket, as such, she was not authorized to travel in sleeper class. Consequently she, being not a bonafide passenger, is not entitled to any compensation. Relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below: "In the present case, the applicant along with twelve other co-passengers was travelling from Sitapur to Ahmedabad via Lucknow and boarded Sabarmati Express on 11.12.2007. They had purchased general second class ticket, but boarded the sleeper coach. When the train reached Jhansi Railway station, a group of four lady travelling ticket examiners entered the sleeper coach and started ticket checking. According to the applicant, she was pushed out of the coach by the group of TTEs and sustained serious injuries. In this connection, they have also filed an FIR with GRP/Jhansi and a copy of the same has also been submitted to the Tribunal during the arguments. A general second class journey ticket is not valid ticket for travel in the sleeper class. As such, the applicant cannot be considered as a bonafide passenger of the subject train." 5. It is relevant to mention here that petition of the appellant was dismissed on 3rd August, 2009 in default. Application to recall the order was also dismissed on the ground of delay. This order was challenged in F.A.F.O. no. 933 of 2010. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the said appeal on 20.07.2011 directing Tribunal to decide the petition " on merit expeditiously say within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order." 6. This order was challenged in F.A.F.O. no. 933 of 2010. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the said appeal on 20.07.2011 directing Tribunal to decide the petition " on merit expeditiously say within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order." 6. In pursuance of this order, Tribunal has passed the impugned order. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that it is not denied that appellant had ticket. There is finding that she was pushed out by the travelling ticket examiners which resulted in serious injuries to her. In these circumstances, Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the claim. 8. So far as explanation to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 is concerned, it defines the word 'passenger' which definition is inclusive in nature and says that a person who has valid ticket for travelling by train. Tribunal does not dispute that appellant had a ticket and a right to travel by train i.e. Sabarmati Express. 9. Submission that she was travelling with second class ticket in reserve compartment, as such she is not bonafide passenger was turned down by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Smt. Shushma Devi (FAFO no. 1097 of 2008). Relevant para is reproduced below: "Solitary argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the deceased was in reserved compartment, no compensation would be paid to him. Argument of learned counsel for the appellant seems to be misconceived because of fact that the deceased had not died while travelling in unauthorized manner in the reserved compartment. He fell down while not complying instructions issued by the Train Ticket Examiner. This is undisputed fact that the instruction was issued by the Train Ticket Examiner and in lieu thereof, the deceased was coming down from the train and fell down between the compartment and platform. Necessary steps for protection of the deceased should have been taken by the T.T.E., while directing the passengers to un-board the train. There appears to be negligent in on the part of the T.T.E., who instructed the deceased to go down from moving train. In the situation, under which the untoward incident has happened, and the deceased succumbed to injuries, the deceased shall be entitled for compensation under Section 124 of the Act." 10. There appears to be negligent in on the part of the T.T.E., who instructed the deceased to go down from moving train. In the situation, under which the untoward incident has happened, and the deceased succumbed to injuries, the deceased shall be entitled for compensation under Section 124 of the Act." 10. In the present case also allegation is that railway staff pushed out her from train as a result whereof she received serious injuries. On this very ground alone, Tribunal was not justified in denying the claim admissible to her under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. 11. Consequently, impugned order cannot be sustained. 12. Appeal is allowed. Order dated 24.04.2012 is set aside. Tribunal is directed to decide the petition on merits in the light of observation made in the judgment, if possible, within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it. 13. There shall be no order as to costs.