Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DAILYLAW 3554 (DEL)

Subhash Chand v. Union of India

2014-05-19

Valmiki J Mehta

body2014
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral):-- 1. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated 6.6.21012 by which the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants, and who are the parents of the deceased Sandeep Kumar who died in an untoward incident of a fall from train on 1.01.2011. 2. The facts of the case are that the deceased Sandeep Kumar was travelling on train No. 1-PGM (MEMU) from Badli Railway Station to Narela Railway Station on 1.01.2011. Sh. Sandeep Kumar accidently fell down from train when the train was passing through Samaipur Badli Raja Vihar and as a result of which Sh. Sandeep Kumar succumbed to the injuries sustained. The subject claim petition was, therefore, filed seeking statutory compensation of Rs. 4 lacs. 3. The appellants led evidence before the Tribunal of the appellant No. 1 as AW-1. The appellant No. 1/father deposed that though he was not an eye witness, however, he had purchased a train ticket for his deceased son Sandeep Kumar for travelling from Badli to Narela. In fact, the father/AW- 1/appellant No. 1 contemporaneous to the incident on 1.01.2011 had also similarly given a statement to the police, Ex.AW1/6 and which specifically stated that he had purchased a train ticket for travelling of deceased Sandeep Kumar. No doubt the train ticket was not recovered from the person of the deceased, however, it is quite normal that tickets can get lost in such incident/accident. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, and in view of the testimony of AW-1 and his statement made before the police immediately after the incident as Ex. AW1/6, I hold that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. 4(i) So far as the aspect that whether the deceased Sandeep Kumar fell or did not fall from a train is concerned, the relevant document in this regard is a document being a statement of the eye witness one Shri Rajan, son of Ram Lal. Sh. Rajan gave a statement to the police around the time of the incident, Ex.AW1/5, and which statement specifically records that Sh. Rajan did see a person falling down from the train. There is no reason to disbelieve this statement of Sh. Rajan to the police as Ex. Sh. Rajan gave a statement to the police around the time of the incident, Ex.AW1/5, and which statement specifically records that Sh. Rajan did see a person falling down from the train. There is no reason to disbelieve this statement of Sh. Rajan to the police as Ex. AW1/5 inasmuch as no reason appears on record as to why Shri Rajan would depose falsely with respect to the incident/accident. (ii) At this stage, it is extremely important to note that whereas the appellants led evidence and proved that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and who was travelling in the train, the respondent admittedly has led no evidence whatsoever before the Tribunal. (iii) Once the statement of the eye witness Rajan was filed and proved on record as Ex. AW1/5, if the respondent doubted the statement, it had to summon Sh. Rajan and put questions to him challenging the statement made to the police Ex.AW1/5, but admittedly that was not done by the respondents/Railways. 5. Therefore, appellants had clearly proved the factum of the ‘untoward incident’ as per Section 123(c) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. I may note that now it is well settled that the liability of the Railways is a strict liability and such liability arises even if there is negligence of the bonafide passenger. Only if the negligence becomes a criminal negligence then liability cannot be fastened on to the Railways, and which aspect has to be especially proved by the Railways/respondent and which the respondent has not done inasmuch as no evidence has been led by the respondent. The relevant judgments of the Supreme Court in this regard are in the cases of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 527 and Jameela & Ors. v. Union of India (2010) 12 SCC 443 . 6. In view of the above appeal is allowed and impugned judgment is set aside. Appellants will be entitled to statutory compensation of Rs. 4 lacs divided in equal parts between these two parents of the deceased Sh. Sandeep Kumar. Appellants will also be entitled to interest at 7 ½ % per annum simple from the date of filing of the petition before the Tribunal till the date of payment. Parties are left to bear their own costs.