Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 21 (MP)

UNION OF INDIA v. DEVKARAN

2024-01-04

DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

body2024
ORDER : 1. This appeal under section 23 of Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short “the Act of 1987”) has been preferred by the appellant represented by General Manager, Western Central Railways Jabalpur challenging the award dated 23-8-2016 delivered by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal (for short “the Tribunal”) in case No. O.A. No. IIu/BPL/2012/0415 granting compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with interest 8% per annum from the date of claim application i.e. 18-9-2012 till the date of passing the aforesaid order against the respondent/railways on account of the death of deceased-Ashish Patel who died while travelling in a train on 8-6-2012. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to they are arrayed before the RCT in the claim petition. 3. The concise facts in the claim petition, relevant for determination of the appeal, are as under. 4. Twenty two years old Ashish Patel was a Medical Representatives at the time of his death on 8-6-2012 and while the deceased travelling from Nagpur to Bhopal for his work with a second class journey ticket, further stated that when the train reached Habibganj railway station due to heavy crowd in the compartment and jolting of the train suddenly the deceased unexpectedly lost his balance and fell from the moving train due to which he died on the spot and lost his ticket. 5. On the same day, the matter was reported to the Government Railway Police by Loko-pilot of Panchweli train alleging that dead body was lying in the Habibgaj Down Line Platform No. 3. Basing on the said intimation, the GRP, Habibganj registered a merg No. 28/12 and body was sent to the Government Hospital Bhopal for Postmortem and after completion of autopsy, handed over the dead body of the deceased to his parents. 6. On account of death of the deceased-Ashish Patel, the appellant-Devkaran Patel who is the father of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest. 7. The respondent-Railway filed a written statement/reply through the Presiding Officer of RCT, Bhopal, wherein they have denied that it was an untoward incident as defined under section 123(c)(2) r/w section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and further averred that as per DRM’s report the alleged incident was occurred while the deceased was trying to detrain from the moving train and resultant run over. The alleged incident pertaining to “self inflicted injury” and “his own criminal act” as defined exceptions (b) and (c) under section 124-A of Railway Act, 1989, further denied that the appellant is required to prove that the deceased was travelling with a valid ticket defined under section 2(29) of the Railway Act, 1989 and further contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger because his journey ticket was not found or produced before the RCT as per the DRM’s report and further averred that the allegation of death of deceased due to untoward incident was denied and the claim application filed by the claimant is not maintainable, therefore, the Western Central Railway is not liable to pay any compensation. 8. In view of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question at the time of occurrence of the alleged untoward incident? 2. Whether the death of the deceased caused due to the said alleged untoward incident as defined under section 123(c)(2) read with section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989? 3. Whether the respondent Railway Administration is protected under section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989 and is not liable to pay compensation to the applicant? 4. Whether the applicant is the sole dependent of the deceased Ashish Patel S/o Devkaran Patel and no other dependents? 5. Relief? 9. In order to establish the claim of the applicant at the time of inquiry, the claimant who is the father of the deceased filed an affidavit and exhibits A-1 to A-9 marked on behalf of the claimant and no evidence led and no documents marked on behalf of the respondent-railways. 10. The learned Tribunal after analyzing the entire evidence on record i.e. affidavit and placing reliance on Ex. A-1 to A-9, the learned Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased had an accidental fallen while travelling by a train and died on account of injuries and further held as per DRM’s report the respondent-railways has admitted that the death of the deceased due to fall from the train, therefore, in the instant case covered under the definition of untoward incident and as such claimant is entitled to get compensation and passed an award for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation with interest 8% per annum from the date of application i.e. 18-9-2012 till the date of passing of the order. 11. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, the appellant-railway preferred the present appeal seeking to set aside the order dated 23-8-2016 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal in O.A. No. IIu/BPL/2012/0415. 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-railways and learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent and perused the material available on record. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/railways would submit that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the investigation report submitted by the Railways police wherein specifically mentioned that the deceased was not travelling with a valid ticket and no ticket was recovered from his possession, the learned Tribunal ought not have found that the deceased to be a bona fide passenger, further submit that there was two necessary ingredients which needs to be proved on strict parameters; first the deceased being a “bona fide passenger” and second being the “occurrence of an untoward incident”. The findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal in contrary to the Apex Court judgments, the award passed by learned Tribunal is erroneous, therefore, he prays to set aside the order passed by the learned Claims Tribunal dated 23-8-2016 and allowed the appeal. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent/claimant contended that the occurrence was an outcome of an untoward incident as defined under section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 (in short “Railways Act”). Further contended that the deceased had lost his balance during the course of journey and he fell down on the railway track. Further contended that the learned Tribunal appreciated the evidence and found that the deceased was a bona fide passenger at the time of incident and suffered an untoward incident as defined under section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act and further contended that the impugned order of the learned Claims Tribunal do not suffer from any factual infirmity, inconsistency, or legal infirmity, so as to warrant the appellate Court, to interfere therewith, on any question of fact, or finding, or law. The findings recorded by the said Tribunal and all the issues framed by it, as correct and sustainable, both at fact and law, therefore, the appeal filed by the Railways Administration is lack of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 15. The findings recorded by the said Tribunal and all the issues framed by it, as correct and sustainable, both at fact and law, therefore, the appeal filed by the Railways Administration is lack of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 15. In the light of the above arguments, the point for determination is: “Whether there was any merit in the petition to set aside the order dated 23-8-2016 passed by the Claims Tribunal?” 16. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of provisions of Railway Act, in particular Chapter VIII which deals with the liability of Railway Administration for death and injury to the passenger due to the accidents. Section 123(c) defines “untoward incident” as per clause (2), the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers would be an “untoward incident.” As per section 124-A, the Railways Administration is liable to pay compensation on account of untoward incident. When a course of working of railway, an untoward incident occurs then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway Administration as such, would entitle a passenger who has been injured or died. The claim can be maintained to recover the damages, and notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the Railway is liable to pay compensation as prescribed for such untoward incident. 17. A decision reported in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 , in Para-29 is concluded as thus: “We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly.” 18. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly.” 18. In view of the above legal position followed by Apex Court judgment (supra), on the basis of pleadings and the material placed on record, the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal do not suffer from any factual infirmity, inconsistency or legal infirmity so as to warrant the Appellate Court interfere therewith, on any question of fact, or, finding, or law. This Court satisfied with the finding recorded by the Tribunal and all the issues, framed by it as correct and sustainable, both, at fact and law. I am of the considered view that the tribunal was justified in allowing the claim holding that the deceased Ashish Patel fallen from the running train who is the bona fide passenger of the passenger train and died due to untoward incident. A conjoint reading of aforesaid provisions shows that if a person falls down from a running train, such an incident would amount to an ‘untoward incident’ within the meaning of section 123(c)(2) of the Act. A perusal of section 124-A shows that liability of the Railways in such type of cases is strict liability. Railways cannot avoid making payment of compensation even if a passenger is found to be negligent. In the instant case, the deceased had accidental fallen down from the running train and succumbed to the injuries and undoubtedly the journey ticket may lost, in the instant case the respondent railways failed to establish that whether the deceased is a bona fide passenger or not as the burden lies on the respondent-authority and hence the railway administration is liable to pay adequate compensation. 19. In this context reference can be of a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Union of India vs. Satish Patidar, 2003 (4) M.P.L.J. 306 , wherein it is held : “27. This brings us to point No. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased was not a bona-fide passenger, as the claimants could not establish that he purchased the ticket. The burden to prove that the deceased had a valid ticket during his journey which he proceeded cannot be placed on dependents. This brings us to point No. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased was not a bona-fide passenger, as the claimants could not establish that he purchased the ticket. The burden to prove that the deceased had a valid ticket during his journey which he proceeded cannot be placed on dependents. Obviously, such burden of proof is impossible to be discharged by the dependents who can have no means of knowledge whether the deceased before boarding the train had purchased the valid ticket. It is likely that such a deceased passenger had a valid ticket but the same was lost in accident. To place the onus of proof dependents would amount to denial of the benefit of legislation to them for reasons beyond their control. In the case before us, the presumption has to be drawn that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Therefore, we affirm the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.” 20. The written statement/reply filed by the Railway Administration stated that the alleged incident was occurred when the deceased was trying to detrain from the moving train as a result he run over. In the DRM’s report dated 8-6-2012 stated that the deceased tried to get down from the running train which result in death due to the injuries caused by fallen from the running passenger train, therefore, as per section 123(c) defines “untoward incident” as per clause (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers would be an untoward incident as per section 124-A of the Railway Act, the Railway Administration is liable to pay compensation. 21. In the instant case Railways has failed to examine any of its witness to establish the fact that the deceased was travelling without ticket and the deceased died due to the self inflicted injury or in criminal act. Since the deceased boarded the train, the presumption would be that he has valid authority to travel, the Tribunal, therefore, was justified in holding that the deceased was a bona fide passenger died due to untoward incident and the postmortem report conducted in Government Hospital Bhopal indicates that the cause of death was due to shock hemorrhage and as a result of decapitation of the head. The claim petition filed by the respondent/claimant before the Railways Claims Tribunal Bhopal seeking compensation. The claim petition filed by the respondent/claimant before the Railways Claims Tribunal Bhopal seeking compensation. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation and the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal is justified and sustainable. 22. The learned Tribunal held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died due to accidental falling of any train under section 123(2) read with section 124-A of the Railway Act. However, as per the DRM’s report and reply filed by Railway Administration shows that there is no foul play is suspected in the cause of death of the deceased and it is a clear case of “accidental death due to fell down from the running passenger train”. Merely because the deceased was not possessing journey ticket, it cannot be said that the deceased did not die in an untoward incident, thus, following the judgments of Apex Court as stated supra, the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent-railway that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger is unsustainable and the findings recorded by the said Tribunal, and all the issues framed by it, as correct and sustainable and justified in awarding compensation, in accordance with law and do not suffer from any factual infirmity, inconsistency or legal infirmity so as to warrant interfere therewith on any question of fact, or finding, or, law, this Court satisfied with the findings recorded by the said Tribunal. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- with 8% interest per annum from the date of claim application till the judgment and no illegality committed by learned Tribunal and needs no interference by this Court. 23. Accordingly, as per the above discussion, in view of aforesaid settled law, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and is accordingly dismissed and confirmed the impugned order dated 23-8-2016 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal in Case No. O.A. No. IIu/BPL/2012/0415. (i) The respondent/Railway Administration shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order in terms of the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. No order as to costs. (ii) Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending for consideration shall stands closed.