M REHAN & ANR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal impugns an order dated 02.03.2017 dismissing the appellants' claim for compensation for death of their son Subhan in a railway accident on 17.11.2015. The deceased was travelling from Hazrat Nizamuddin to Ahmedabad in the general compartment of Train No.12918, Gujarat Sampark Kranti Express. Due to heavy rush of passengers, he could get space only near the gate of train compartment. In the intervening night of 17th and 18th November, 2015, while the train was passing between Ratlam and Raoti Railway Station, he fell from the train because of a sudden jerk in it. He sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. His demise in the train accident is not in dispute. The claim has been contested by the Railways only on the ground that he was travelling without a ticket at the gate of the compartment. The appellants had lead evidence through Mr. Mohd. Meharban the elder brother of the deceased, who stated that the deceased had purchased a second class journey ticket for his travel from Hazrat Nizamuddin to Ahmedabad, when he had gone to see him off at the Railway Station. It is possible that the said ticket got misplaced or was lost either during the accident or while he was being taken to the hospital after the accident.

(2.) The claim was primarily dismissed on the ground that while the mobile phone of the deceased was found in a damaged condition, there was no reason as to why the ticket, if any, would be lost. Accordingly, accepting the contentions of the Railways, the impugned order held: (i) that the accident could not be held to be an untoward incident because the deceased had taken a train which takes a longer route i.e. 1085 kms. to reach Ahmedabad while there were many trains on a shorter route, i.e., Ashram Express, which takes 933 kms; and (ii) the deceased's first slipper fell after 20 ft. and the second one fell 30 ft. from his body, therefore, there was a suspicion that the site of the accident might have been manipulated. This Court is unable to agree with the said reasoning or suspicion. Apropos the choice of a passenger to take a longer route, the Railways have no right to question. The impugned order accepting the said contention to doubt the train journey itself cannot be upheld. The question to be considered would have been whether rail passengers normally get to travel in a train of their choice, especially if they have to travel in a hurry? Do people get to choose between the crowded general compartment of one train with a similarly crowded compartment of another train? What do people do when they do not get reserved seats or berths and must necessarily travel? Perhaps these and like queries would have obviated the unfounded doubt. The impugned order has failed to note that Constable-Mr. Bharat had stated that he was deputed at 8 o'clock on the date of the incident to the site of the accident. He has deposed that he reached the said site: K. No. 625/2013 on Up-line, where after sometime ASI Yadav also reached and inspected the body. They found a mobile phone from the body of the deceased. A number was taken from the said mobile phone and the family of the deceased was contacted. ASI Yadav was told that the unknown person's name was Subhan and his father's name was M. Rehan; that Subhan was travelling by the said train. Although no travel document or ticket was found on the body of the deceased but visually it appeared that he had fallen from an unknown train after which he was taken to the administrative hospital. On 28.11.2015, the father of the deceased stated that his son had died in an accident and it was so evident from various injuries on his body. It was also narrated that he was travelling from Delhi to Ahmedabad. The Post Mortem Report dated 19.11.2015 is as under:-

(3.) This evidence was neither considered by the impugned order nor has it been disputed by the Railways. Its evidentiary value, a Post Mortem Report from a government hospital, remains unshaken. It has to be accepted as true. Furthermore, the Court is unable to accept the impossible reasoning in the impugned order that because a cell-phone was found on the body of the deceased, there is no reason why a lighter object a railway ticket would not be found on him. It is common sensical that a lighter object is more likely to fly-off from a pocket, than a cell-phone which may be esconsed deeper into a persons' clothing pockets. The unfortunate grievous, multiple fatal injuries, to the deceased the distance between his body and the slippers would lend to the reasonable intercourse that he must have violently tossed-over a few times, considering that he fell from a fast moving train. The loss of his passenger ticket in such fast paced motion cannot be ruled out.