RANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The present first appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 challenges the impugned judgment dated 23.2.2009 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, dismissing the claim of the appellants/dependants of the deceased one Sh. Hukum Singh. It was not disputed by the Railways before Railway Claims Tribunal on account of death report proved as Ex.AW1/5, that death of the deceased took place on account of a fall from the train and hence there was an 'untoward incident' within the meaning of the said expression as found in Sections 123(c) and 124 -A of the Railway Act, 1989. The claim was dismissed as the deceased was held not to be a bonafide passenger as the appellants failed to file/prove the original ticket for the date of travel on 10.4.2007.

(2.) THE case which was set up by the appellants/dependants was that the deceased on 9.4.2007 had purchased railway ticket to and fro from his place of residence in Ballabhgarh for travelling to Delhi. It was the further case of the appellants that on account of delay caused in purchase of stationary etc., for which the deceased had come to Delhi, he did not return from Delhi on the same day and stayed overnight at the residence of the relative Sh. Vijender. The deceased returned on the next date i.e. 10.4.2007, and on which date he died on account of fall from the train.

(3.) THE admitted facts which appear in this case are that the deceased did fall from a train and died in the accident. There is no dispute that this is an 'untoward incident' as per Sections 123(c) and Section 124 -A. The only aspect to be considered is that whether the deceased was a valid passenger or not. In my opinion, once, the valid train tickets both for to and fro travel of the previous date 9.4.2007 were in fact filed and proved by the appellants, it is quite clear that the deceased was normally a valid passenger and did not ordinarily travel without tickets and thus it should be held that he was a bonafide passenger even for 10.4.2007 because AW -2 Sh. Vijender had deposed that the ticket for travel on 10.4.2007 was purchased by the deceased in his presence. Merely because the original train ticket could not be produced for the date when the incident took place, would not mean that the deceased was not a valid passenger because it is not unknown that when such untoward incidents causing death takes place, the original ticket can indeed get lost and which did happen in the present case. Consequently, the Railway Claims Tribunal is wholly unjustified in holding the deceased not to be a lawful passenger. I must at the cost of repetition reiterate that the deceased had purchased tickets of the previous day not only from travel from Ballabhgarh to Delhi but he had also purchased the return ticket from Delhi to Ballabhgarh showing his bonafides. Thus, it was not that he was not a bonafide passenger, but only that, his ticket could not be traced. The Railway Claims Tribunal ought to have believed the appellants that the original ticket, which ordinarily is always with the passenger, had got lost/misplaced when death took place of such deceased passenger by falling from the train, especially in the facts of this case where no one else was travelling with the deceased, and who would have taken care of the belongings of the deceased when the accident happened. Reasoning of the Tribunal that stationary was not found at the site of the accident and which ought to have been as the deceased had purchased stationary or that PW -2 was a relative and hence should be disbelieved are hardly good enough reasons for dismissing a claim such as the present when there is already a huge blow to the dependents by the head/earning member having died and who otherwise was shown to have ordinarily purchased both travel and return travel journey tickets. Besides a host of other reasons, it Is not unnatural that the packet containing stationary may well have been left in the train from which the deceased had fallen, and, a relative in these cases with whom the deceased had stayed overnight can surely depose in favour of the appellants and there is nothing so as to hold that the testimony of such witness is only a testimony of an 'obliging'/'interested witness'. A civil case is decided on balance of probabilities and the balance of probabilities is that the ticket of the date of the accident got lost in the accident which caused the death of the deceased.