Rani vs Union Of India

Harkesh Manuja, J.

By way of present appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenge has been laid to the award dated 02.03.2023 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned award") passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest, on account of the death of her son, namely, Kawaljit Singh (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), in an alleged untoward incident dated 11.03.2020, was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that on 11.03.2020, at about 3.30 p.m., the deceased boarded train No.12498, Shan-e-Punjab, from Amritsar Railway Station for his onward journey to Jalandhar. According to the appellant, at about 3.40/3.55 p.m., while the train was passing through Beas Railway Station, the deceased accidentally fell from the running train and sustained serious injuries. He was initially taken to Primary Health Centre, Baba Bakala, and thereafter to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar, but succumbed to his injuries while being taken to a private hospital during the intervening night of 11/12.03.2020. It was further pleaded that the journey ticket of the deceased was lost during the incident and the subsequent hospitalisation.

The claim petition was contested by the respondent-Railway, inter alia, on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of any train, as no ticket was recovered from his person. It was further pleaded, on the basis of the D.R.M. enquiry, that the deceased used to beg in the guise of a eunuch, while wearing women's clothes, and extract money from railway passengers. Accordingly, it was contended that the incident did not fall within the definition of "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

Vide the impugned award, Issues No.1 and 2 were decided against the appellant. The learned Tribunal held that the deceased was neither proved to be a bona fide passenger nor was his death established to have occurred in an untoward incident. Consequently, no findings were recorded on Issues No.3 and 4, and the claim petition was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal were contrary to the evidence available on record, including the material produced by the respondent-Railway itself. It was contended that the learned Tribunal erroneously placed the entire burden upon the appellant, despite the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rina Devi, 2019 (3) SCC 572. He further submitted that the absence of a ticket could not, by itself, be a ground to reject the claim, particularly when the appellant had explained that the same was lost during the incident and the respondent-Railway did not examine the concerned Travelling Ticket Examiner. Learned counsel also submitted that the D.R.M. enquiry was completed beyond the period prescribed under Rule 7(2) of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, as amended in 2007.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Railway supported the impugned award and submitted that the appellant failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. It was contended that no ticket was recovered from the deceased and that the material collected during the enquiry raised serious doubt regarding his presence as a passenger in the train. Accordingly, dismissal of the appeal has been prayed for.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book.

The question as to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger needs to be examined in the light of the material collected by the respondent-Railway itself. Before considering the objection regarding non-recovery of a journey ticket, it would be appropriate to notice the contemporaneous record relating to the occurrence and the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. The Death Report No.34 dated 12.03.2020, recorded under Section 174 Cr.P.C. by GRP/ASR (Ex.A-1), forming part of the record forwarded along with the D.R.M. enquiry report (Ex.R-1), records in column 20 the "Seeming Causes of death" as "Railway accident, due to falling down from train". Column 12 mentions the instrument of injury as "With railway train". Further, column 10 records that the right leg of the deceased was amputated and the left leg was fractured from the knee, besides abrasions on the rest of the body. Column 11 also records that blood had flown out on account of the injuries sustained.

The aforesaid document constitute material evidence which cannot be brushed aside while examining the defence raised by the respondent-Railway. Even the Model Performa submitted by the Investigating Officer of the RPF under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, as amended in 2007 (Ex.R-1), records at column 27(a), under the heading "Conclusion of Investigation", "As per the GRP/Local Police" as "Accidental fall from train (Train Accident)". Column 23(f) records the cause of death, as per the post-mortem report, as "Haemorrhage and shock within 24 hours of postmortem". Thus, the respondent-Railway's own departmental record, while raising an objection regarding the bona fide passenger status of the deceased for want of a ticket, does not dispute that the deceased sustained injuries on account of an accidental fall from a train. This aspect assumes significance while appreciating the evidence relating to the identity of the train and the circumstances in which the deceased sustained the fatal injuries. In this regard, the statement of HC Jaspinder Singh records that, on receiving information from the Deputy Station Superintendent at about 15.55 hours on 11.03.2020, he reached the spot and found the deceased, aged about 24-25 years, wearing women's clothes, lying injured near the down loop line adjacent to platform No.2, with one leg severed and other grievous injuries. The same is corroborated by the statement of Parminder Singh, who stated that he noticed the injured lying near platform No.2 at about 16.00 hours while checking the platform. The statement of the Station Superintendent, namely, Rajiv Ranjan Kumar (Ex.R-5), further records that train No.12498 arrived at platform No.2, Beas, at 15.51 hours and departed at 15.53 hours. It also records that memo No.28/SS/Beas/2020 was issued at 15.55 hours, barely two minutes after the departure of the said train, on receipt of information from an unknown passenger regarding an injured person lying on the platform.

The aforesaid evidence establishes a close and contemporaneous nexus between the departure of train No.12498 and the discovery of the deceased in a grievously injured condition near the track adjacent to platform No.2. The narrow time gap between the departure of the train and the discovery of the injured person constitutes a strong circumstantial link connecting the occurrence with the movement of the said train. It is true that the Loco Pilot, Fateh Singh, and the Guard, Dinesh Kumar, in their respective statements, denied having noticed any person falling from or being run over by their train. However, such denial, by itself, cannot displace the objective and contemporaneous evidence regarding the time and place of the occurrence, particularly when there is no material on record to suggest that any other train had passed through the relevant down loop line at or about the same time.

Having regard to the aforesaid material, the objection regarding the bona fide passenger status of the deceased is required to be examined in the light of the settled legal position. The learned Tribunal has primarily relied upon the fact that no railway ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased during personal search (fard jamatalashi, Ex.A-2), as also upon an informal statement attributed to the deceased's mother before the RPF authorities, suggesting that the deceased used to beg in the guise of a eunuch while wearing women's clothes. The aforesaid approach, in my considered view, does not stand scrutiny in the light of the settled legal position. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rina Devi (supra), has held that mere absence of a ticket with the deceased or injured person would not, by itself, negate the claim of bona fide passenger status. The initial burden can be discharged by the claimant by placing the relevant facts on record, whereafter the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the same.

In the present case, the appellant, while appearing as AW-1, categorically stated in her affidavit and evidence that the deceased was travelling with a valid ticket, which was lost while he was being removed to the hospital. Significantly, columns 9 and 10 of the Model Performa, relied upon by the respondent-Railway, record that the journey ticket was "not received" and mark the corresponding fields as "N/A". Thus, no exercise of verification of the ticket status of the deceased through the relevant reservation or UTS records appears to have been undertaken. Once the appellant had discharged the initial burden in terms of the aforesaid legal position, the respondent-Railway was required to place material on record to rebut the same. However, the concerned Travelling Ticket Examiner of train No.12498 was not examined to establish that the deceased was not travelling in the said train. The mere absence of recovery of a ticket, in these circumstances, could not have been treated as conclusive against the appellant.

As regards the theory that the deceased was travelling in disguise as a eunuch, the material on record does not inspire confidence in the conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal. The statement of Malkeet Singh, real brother of the deceased, recorded on 12.03.2020 during the inquest proceedings (Ex.R-8), makes no reference to any such disguise or means of livelihood. Rather, it records that the deceased "used to go to Jalandhar and Ludhiana in trains", which is consistent with the conduct of an ordinary rail passenger. More significantly, the appellant, in her subsequent statement recorded during the D.R.M. enquiry, is stated to have denied that her son possessed any qualities of a "khusra" and described him as an ordinary man.

The aforesaid material, coupled with the absence of any independent corroboration of the disguise theory from the Loco Pilot, Guard, Travelling Ticket Examiner or any co-passenger, renders the reliance placed by the learned Tribunal upon the earlier informal and untested version wholly unsafe. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on this aspect, therefore, cannot be sustained.

Another relevant aspect is the delay in completion of the D.R.M. enquiry. Rule 7(2) of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, as amended in 2007, prescribes completion of the investigation within 60 days. In the present case, the D.R.M. enquiry report (Ex.R-1) was submitted on 24.11.2020/25.11.2020, i.e. more than nine months after the occurrence dated 11.03.2020. No explanation, whatsoever, has been furnished by the respondent-Railway for such delay. Any prejudice caused in the collection of contemporaneous evidence, including the non-collection of CCTV footage or non-examination of the ticket-checking staff on duty, cannot be permitted to operate to the detriment of the claimant, particularly when such delay is attributable to the Railway's own process.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant discharged the initial burden of establishing that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger and that he sustained fatal injuries in an untoward incident. The mere non-recovery of a journey ticket from the deceased cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that he was not a bona fide passenger. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, therefore, cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside. Once the deceased is held to be a bona fide passenger and the occurrence is found to constitute an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, the respondent-Railway is liable to pay compensation under Section 124-A of the said Act.

As regards the quantum of compensation, the accident in the present case occurred on 11.03.2020. In Rina Devi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the compensation applicable on the date of accident, together with reasonable interest, is first to be worked out and, if the amount so arrived at is less than the compensation prescribed on the date of the award, the claimant would be entitled to the higher of the two amounts. The said principle was reiterated in Union of India v. Radha Yadav, (2019) 3 SCC 410. In the present case, the accident having occurred on 11.03.2020, the compensation prescribed for death of a passenger under the applicable statutory regime was Rs.8,00,000/-. Even if the amount applicable on the date of accident is computed with reasonable interest in terms of Rina Devi (supra) and Radha Yadav (supra), the same would not exceed the sum of Rs.8,00,000/-. Accordingly, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till the date of realization.

Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned award dated 09.06.2026 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, is set aside. The appellant-claimant shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- allong with interest @ 9% p.a. from the respondent-Railway. The respondent-Railway shall deposit the aforesaid amount with the learned Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this judgment till realization. The amount so deposited shall be disbursed to the claimant(s), in accordance with law, after due verification. 15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.