SHEELA DEVI & OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, filed under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against the order of the Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench dated 27.02.2009, wherein the claim application of the appellant was dismissed qua the death of Malkeet Singh, who is the husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellants No.2 & 3.

(2.) The reasoning given by the Tribunal for rejecting the case is that the onus was on the respondent-Railways that the deceased was a ticket less traveler but contradictory evidence was produced on record. The respondent-Railways had been absolved in discharging its onus and the statement of Constable Surinder Singh regarding the two journey tickets from Rurki to Jalandhar City bearing No.63895 and 63896, which had been recovered, had not been mentioned in the recovery memo (Ext. A-8). The only recovery was of one identity card of one Ex-serviceman and nothing else was recovered. Same was also witnessed by Constable Surinder Singh and therefore, the subsequent recovery memo dated 10.01.2004 was held to be manipulated and not worth reliance. The tickets had not been placed on record and therefore, the conduct of Sham Singh-AW1, son was found strange that he had gone back to the village instead of looking for his father after alighting the train. Resultantly, the deceased was held not to be a bona fide passenger on the date of the incident and therefore, issue No.1 was decided against the claimants and resultantly, compensation was denied. Issue No.3 was, however, decided in favour of the claimants regarding the relationship and locus standi, as such, to file the petition.

(3.) The reasoning given by the Tribunal is not liable to be accepted, in view of the sequence of events, which would clearly go on to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger who had boarded the train along with his son on 09.01.2004 from Rurki to Jalandhar and was involved in an untoward incident as his body was found at Sarai Banjara by the Trackman-Bandhan, RW1. The pleadings were very explicit in as much as in the claim petition itself, there was a reference of the two second class tickets from Rurki to Jalandhar and the incident which had taken place.