AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By way of the present appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the appellants seek to assail the judgment dated 04.12.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(u)/GZB/67/2019, whereby the claim application filed by the appellant seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a railway accident came to be dismissed.
Briefly stated, the case set up by the appellant before the Tribunal was that on 11.05.2018, he was travelling from Kanpur Central to Ghaziabad by Train No. 12443 UP (Haldia Express) after purchasing a valid journey ticket. It was stated that, owing to heavy rush in the general compartment, he was standing near the gate of the compartment. When the train was passing through Bhadan Railway Station, he was pushed by fellow passengers and, on account of the sudden jerk and jolt of the train, fell from the moving train and sustained grievous injuries, resulting in amputation of his right leg above the knee.
Upon notice, the respondent/Railways filed its written statement along with the DRM Report, disputing the claim. It was contended that, as per the information received from the Points Man, one person had been run over by Train No. 12443 UP at kilometre 1192/05 and that no journey ticket had been recovered from the appellant. The respondent, therefore, disputed his status as a bona fide passenger.
The Tribunal framed issues, inter alia, regarding the appellant’s status as a bona fide passenger and whether he had sustained injuries in an “untoward incident” as defined within the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The Tribunal accepted the appellant’s case on the latter issue and held that the injuries had been sustained in an “untoward incident”. However, on the question of bona fide passenger status, the Tribunal disbelieved the appellant’s evidence, principally on account of the discrepancies in the testimonies of AW-1/Rohan Kapoor and AW-2/Smt. Radha Rani, his mother.
Learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the appellant himself was examined as AW-1 and categorically deposed that he was travelling after purchasing a valid journey ticket. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has attached undue significance to the discrepancy regarding the person who purchased the ticket and the persons accompanying the appellant, without considering his age at the time of the incident and the circumstances in which the journey was undertaken. Reliance is placed on “Union of India v. Rina Devi”1 and the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in “Lata v. Union of India”2.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the appellant, in his affidavit, claimed that he had purchased the ticket himself, whereas in his cross-examination he stated that his neighbour, Deepak Kumar, had purchased two separate tickets, one for himself and the other for the appellant. It is further submitted that there is no evidence to show that Deepak Kumar had handed over the appellant’s ticket to him. It is thus contended that the appellant failed to establish his bona fide passenger status.
This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, including the claim application, the affidavits and depositions of the witnesses, the DRM Report and the other documents forming part of the paper book.
The issue of “untoward incident”, having already been decided in favour of the appellant, the principal question which arises for consideration is whether the appellant had established that he was travelling as a bona fide passenger in Train No. 12443 UP on the date of the incident. The legal position governing this issue stands settled. The Supreme Court, while considering the burden of proof in claims arising out of railway accidents, held that mere absence of a ticket with the injured or deceased passenger would not, by itself, negative the claim of bona fide travel. The initial burden is upon the claimant, which can be discharged by filing an affidavit setting out the relevant facts. Once such foundational facts are placed on record, the burden shifts to the Railways, and the issue is required to be decided on the basis of the evidence and attending circumstances. {Ref: Rina Devi (supra)}. The aforesaid principle has recently been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Lata (supra) and more recently, in “Sukhabhai Nanjibhai Makwana & Anr. v. Union of India”3, the Supreme Court reiterated that where the claimant has deposed on oath regarding the purchase of a valid ticket and its subsequent loss, the initial burden stands discharged and the Railways must bring on record cogent material to rebut such evidence.
Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is pertinent to note that the appellant himself entered the witness box as AW-1 and tendered his affidavit in evidence. In the said affidavit, he specifically deposed that on 11.05.2018 he was travelling from Kanpur Central to Ghaziabad after purchasing a valid journey ticket. He further stated that, owing to the absence of sufficient space inside the compartment, he was standing near its gate and, when the train reached Bhadan Railway Station, it suddenly jerked, as a result of which he fell from the moving train. He also categorically stated that his wallet containing cash and the valid railway ticket was lost in the incident.
Thus, the person who had himself undertaken the journey and sustained the injuries entered the witness box and deposed on oath about the relevant facts. His testimony, therefore, required consideration in its entirety and in the context of the surrounding circumstances.
The Tribunal, however, has rejected the appellant’s testimony by placing considerable reliance on the answers elicited during his cross-examination. It noticed that, whereas in his affidavit the appellant stated that he had purchased the journey ticket himself, in cross-examination he stated that he was travelling along with his mother and a neighbour, Deepak Kumar, whom he used to address as Bhaiya. He further stated that Deepak Kumar had purchased two separate tickets, one for himself and the other for the appellant. The Tribunal considered this statement to be inconsistent with his affidavit and further observed that there was no evidence to establish that Deepak Kumar had handed over the appellant’s ticket to him.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid circumstances were required to be examined view of the surrounding circumstances as well as in view of the beneficial nature of the legislation. The appellant was about 13 years of age at the time of the incident. His explanation in cross-examination that Deepak Kumar had purchased two separate tickets, one for himself and the other for the appellant, does not, in substance, contradict the fact that a separate journey ticket was purchased for the appellant.
It is also significant that the respondent has not examined any witness to rebut his specific statement regarding the purchase of a ticket for the journey. The non-recovery of the ticket during the subsequent proceedings, in the absence of any further material disproving the appellant’s version, cannot be treated as conclusive against him.
In view of the above, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal, which is requested to assess the amount of compensation payable to the appellant in accordance with law and direct the authorities concerned to disburse the same within two months from the receipt of a copy of this order. For this purpose, the matter be listed before the Tribunal at the first instance on 01.12.2026.
The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
A copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Tribunal.