In an appeal filed before the Delhi High Court under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against a judgment dated 22-03-2021 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi, whereby the appellant’s application was dismissed on the ground that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor was the incident an ‘untoward incident’ as per the Railways Act, 1989 (Act), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri set aside the judgment and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for assessment of the compensation payable to the appellant.
On 15-06-2018, the deceased was travelling from Tughlakabad to Palwal by a local EMU train with a valid journey ticket. When the train was running between stations, the deceased fell from the train due to a jerk and sustained grievous injuries, which led to his death at the spot.
The appellant contended that even though the journey ticket was not recovered from the deceased’s person, the testimony of the deceased’s brother-in-law, who purchased the ticket for him, established that the deceased went on the journey on the strength of a valid ticket.
Referring to Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, the Court stated that the absence of recovery of a ticket does not negate the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The Court took note of the brother-in-law’s testimony and said that the testimony had remained consistent and had not been discredited in cross-examination. It was stated that the appellant was successful in having discharged the burden of establishing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim solely on the ground of non-recovery of the journey ticket.
Taking note of the respondent’s reliance on the contention that the deceased was mentally stressed due to unemployment, the Court found the same to be inconsequential and stated that there was no material to suggest that the stress was of such extent that it would lead the deceased to take any extreme step.
It was noted that the SHO was of the opinion that the deceased was run over by a train while crossing the railway track, and the Court stated that this opinion, based on the condition of the body, was only speculative in nature and that it could not be relied upon as conclusive proof. The Court found that, even according to the DRM report, the Railways’ case was that the deceased fell from a running train due to his own negligence. It was said that once the factum of fall from a running train was accepted, the same would fall within the ambit of an ‘untoward incident’. The Court stated that attributing negligence to the deceased does not alter this position.
The Court said that the liability of Railways in such cases is strict, subject to statutory exceptions. Applying the principle of Surendra Verma v. Union of India 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2917, the Court stated that the precise time at which the deceased fell was not known, and the mere fact that the body was noticed after some time could not lead to an adverse inference against the claimant.
Hence, the Court stated that the Tribunal had adopted an unduly rigid standard of proof, as the provisions regarding compensation under Section 124-A of the Act constitute beneficial legislation and must be construed liberally. The Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for assessment of the compensation payable to the appellant and to direct authorities to disburse the same within two months.
Thus, the appeal was allowed and disposed of.
Appearances:
For Appellant – Mr. Rajan Sood
For Respondent – Mr. Harsh Kumar (SPC, UOI), Ms. Sikha Gogoi, Mr. Himanshu Bidhuri, Mr. Neel Kr. Sharma
