Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1357 (DEL)

Nathi Lal v. Union of India

2014-04-30

VALMIKI J.MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT : Valmiki J. Mehta, J. 1. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal which has dismissed the claim petition. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants/claimants filed the claim petition stating that their son Sh. Mannu died in an untoward incident on 24.3.2011 while traveling in an EMU train from New Delhi to Ghaziabad. It is stated that Mannu accidental fell down from the running train and died at the spot. Mannu was said to be accompanied by his real brother namely Sanjay. 3. The claim petition has been dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal by giving the following conclusions:- (i) There was no FIR of the accident on the date of the accident but the information to the police was given after two days. (ii) If there was an accident of a fall from the train on a crowded platform, surely someone or the other would have reported the incident. In any case, in my opinion, railway officials would have in the course of their official duties noted this aspect if an untoward incident had occurred. (iii) Though the deceased Mannu was accompanied by his brother Sanjay, Sh. Sanjay was not brought into the witness box but only his statement before the police was filed and exhibited as Ex.A-7 and consequently, the said document could not be believed. (iv) No ticket has been filed to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and filing of ticket was more so required in the facts of this case where the deceased was accompanied by his real brother. No valid explanation is given for loss of the ticket. 4. The aforesaid conclusions are arrived at in terms of paras 6 to 11 of the impugned judgment and which read as under:- "6. The applicant claims that on 24.03.2012, his son late Mannu, while traveling along with his brother Sanjay from New Delhi to Ghaziabad by an EMU train, accidently fell down from the overcrowded compartment of the running train on platform no. 06 of the destination station, due to a sudden jerk and sustained grievous injury. According to the applicant, the victim was rushed to MMG Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi where he succumbed to his injuries on 26.03.2011. 06 of the destination station, due to a sudden jerk and sustained grievous injury. According to the applicant, the victim was rushed to MMG Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi where he succumbed to his injuries on 26.03.2011. Further, the applicant adds that the articles including the journey ticket, which were in his pocket, could not be traced after the incident. 7. The applicant was given four opportunities from 23.11.2012 to 17.07.2013 but during this period of eight months, no witness except himself turned up to give evidence. The so called eye witness Sanjay, the brother of deceased neither came to describe how the accident occurred nor filed any affidavit, describing the incident. However, the statement of Sh. Sanjay S/o Shri Nathi Lal the applicant recorded by the police at GTB Hospital (Ex.R-1/13) gives a different version of the incident. According to him, the deceased fell down, while boarding from the running train at platform no. 06. 8. There is no evidence on record to show that Mannu was ever taken to MMG Hospital, Shahdara. No document referring his case to GTB Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi is also available on record. Even the MLC prepared in GTB Hospital after he was admitted there, has not been filed as evidence. What is filed as evidence, in connection with the case is the death summary, which reveals nothing about the background of the incident, which caused grievous injury to Mannu leading to his death on 26.03.2012. 9. To sum up, the entire case has been built up on the basis of a statement given by the brother of the deceased. It is strange that no passenger either traveling by the train or anyone waiting for trains on platform no. 06 of Ghaziabad station, noticed and bothered to inform the station authorities about someone falling from the train. 10. The applicant claims that the deceased was traveling with a proper II class ticket but the same got lost in the incident. The question here is who looked for Mannu's tickets? Sanjay revelled nothing about ticket after Mannu's death to the police. As per his statement (Ext. A-7), he rushed his brother to the hospital. The police comes to investigate only after his death on 26.03.2011, in this situation the claim of the applicant appears hollow. 11. Under normal circumstances, non-recovery of a ticket does not mean that the deceased was a ticket less raveller. As per his statement (Ext. A-7), he rushed his brother to the hospital. The police comes to investigate only after his death on 26.03.2011, in this situation the claim of the applicant appears hollow. 11. Under normal circumstances, non-recovery of a ticket does not mean that the deceased was a ticket less raveller. However, the case of Mannu is different. Here the accident occurred at a busy station but neither anyone saw him falling nor there was any information with the railways/police about it for the next two days. This suggests that the deceased was not a bona-fide rail passenger and he did not fall from any EMU train on platform no. 06 of Ghaziabad station on 24.03.2012. Accordingly, the above issues are decided against the applicant." 5. I completely agree with the aforesaid findings and conclusions of the Tribunal and the Tribunal has rightly held that there was no untoward incident not only because the alleged incident is reported after two days to the police, but also because the brother of the deceased Sanjay did not have the courage to step into the witness box and face the test of cross-examination. Also, it is not possible that in a very crowded platform if there was an accident and the deceased was taken to the hospital, there would be no report of the railway police or railway officials with respect to an untoward incident. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment, and the appeal is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.