SURESH KUMAR SHARMA & ANR vs UNION OF INDIA THR GM

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 11 December 2023
Judgment pronounced on : 25 January 2024
+ FAO 77/2015
SURESH KUMAR SHARMA & ANR ….. Appellants
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA THR GM ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Rahul Singh, Mr. Nishant
Shokeen, Ms. Vartika Singh,
Ms. Sumita Singh and Mr. Sahil
Nindawat, Advs.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
J U D G M E N T

1. This is an appeal filed in terms of Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 19871 by the appellants / claimants assailing the
impugned order dated 26.11.2014 passed by the learned Presiding
Officer, Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi2 in OA (IIu)
103/113, whereby the claim for compensation filed under Section 16 of
the RCT Act was dismissed.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

1 RCT Act
2 RCT
3 Claim Application

2. Briefly stated, it was the case of the appellants / claimants that
on 01.01.2011, the deceased Nishant Sharma @ Nishant Sarswat was
travelling from Brijwasan to Taj Nagar by 2MNR train having a valid
ticket bearing no. 05887 at the time of accident. The deceased was
standing near the gate and when train reached KM No. 52/4-5 between

Raj Nagar, partly Haryana, due to heavy rush and sudden jerk, he fell
down from the train and another train crushed the deceased and he died
on the spot. The Post mortem was conducted at a government hospital
in Gurgaon (DD no. 14) on 01.01.2011, which was registered by the
police. The deceased being unmarried, died leaving behind his parents.
Hence, the claimants are claiming a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the
respondent railways.

3. During the course of arguments before the learned RCT, the
respondent Northern Railway filed Written Statements disputing the
claim and their liability to pay compensation and further contending
that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger4 on board the train and
his death was not on account of any untoward incident5 as alleged but
was due to self-inflicted injuries while crossing the railway track.
4. Following issues were framed by the learned RCT:
“i. Whether the claim application is maintainable in regard to the
jurisdiction of this bench?
ii. Whether the applicant proves that the death of the deceased had
occurred as a result of an untoward incident, as alleged in the claim
application?
iii. Whether the respondent proves that the claim is not covered
under the ambit of Section 123, 124 and 124-A of the Railways
Act?
iv. Whether the applicant proves that the deceased was a bona fide
passenger on the train in question on the relevant day?
v. Whether the applicant proves that he is the dependant of the
deceased within the meaning of Section 123(b) of the Railways Act
vi. To what order / relief ?”

4 Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989, a passenger means a person travelling with a valid pass
or ticket.
5 5Section 2(n) of the RCT Act read with Section 123(C) of the Railways Act, 1989 ( accidental
falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers)

5. The learned RCT while answering regarding Issue nos. 2, 3 and
4 after appreciating the evidence on record observed that during
Jamatalashi of the deceased, only an ID card and Rs. 121/- were found
and that neither any journey ticket was recovered from the deceased
nor police record of the investigation mentioned anything about the
journey ticket and thus, held that the deceased was not a bonafide
passenger. The relevant extract of the impugned order is reproduced
below :
“13. In the absence of any supporting evidence, the self serving
statement of the applicant regarding the deceased having a journey
ticket and being a bonafide passenger on board the 2MNR train
cannot be accepted. Even assuming that the deceased did travel by
2MNR train, to be eligible for claiming compensation, the
applicant has to show that the death of the deceased was due to an
untoward incident within the ambit of Section 123 (c) of the
Railways Act which includes accidental falling of any passenger
from a train carrying passengers. The evidence on record does not
show that the death of the deceased was due to any accidental fall
from a train. On the contrary his death was due to getting hit by the
engine of the train while he was walking along the track. Thus,
viewed from any angle, the applicant has failed to show that the
death of the deceased was due to an untoward incident.”
6. The learned RCT, relying on the statements made by Harsh
Gupta, the loco pilot observed as under :
“10. The statement of the loco pilot, who is an eye witness to the
incident, shows that the death of the deceased was due to getting
hit by the train engine when the deceased was walking along the
track and not due to getting run over after fall from train, as
alleged.”

7. It was further observed that evidence led by PW-2 Sh. Shailesh
Chaubey, who stated that he was with the deceased during the incident
was not inspiring any confidence since there was no mention of his
name even in the crucial documents submitted by the appellant during
the inquiry including the death report and the post mortem report.

8. The appellants/claimants in the present appeal allude to the
aspect that the statement of PW-2 Sh. Shaliesh Chaubey, the eye
witness, was not considered regarding the fact that the deceased was a
bonafide passenger with a valid ticket. In support of their claim,
reliance has been placed on Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya
Kumar & Ors.6 Further, appellants are of the view that the tribunal
relied only on the railway reports and no evidence was led by the
respondents. Hence, the appellants / claimants have filed the present
appeal before this court.
ANALYSIS & DECISION:

6 (2008) 9 SCC 527

9. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of
the record, at the outset, I find that the present appeal is bereft of any
merits. The reasons for such decision in the appeal are not far to seek.
10. First things first, AW-1, who is the father of the claimant,
brings out that he was not an eye witness to the accident and for the
first time in his cross-examination, he stated that he had been told
about the accident by a friend of his deceased son. AW-2/Sh. Shaliesh
Chaubey, although deposed that he was with the deceased being his
class-mate and travelling with him on the train when deceased fell out
of the gate due to the over-crowded train and run over by another train
coming from Rewari side, learned RCT has rightly held that his
evidence is not inspiring any confidence. His deposition that he had
gone to the Station Master at Taj Nagar when the train stopped to give
information, was not recorded anywhere in the records of the
Railways. The death report Ex.AW-1/5, post-mortem report Ex.AW-

1/6 and the final report Ex.AW-1/8 make no mention of the fact that
Sh. Shaliesh Chaubey has been an eye witness to the accident. There
is no mention of him in the DRM report Ex.R-1 either. In other words,
the learned RCT rightly held that the presence of Sh. Shaliesh
Chaubey had not been registered anywhere in the documents which
were soon prepared after death of the deceased.
11. Incidentally, the DRM report dated 12.11.2012 Ex.R-1 records
that the death was due to deceased getting run over by a train and it is
categorically brought out in the GRP Report dated 01.11.2014 and the
DRM report Ex.R-1 as well as the report of the Inspector RPF that the
deceased was hit/run over by Train No. 12216 while he was
unauthorisedly walking along the railway track. The statement of
Harsh Gupta, the loco pilot of the train No. 12216, Garib Rath
Express, was categorical that one person was walking on the left side
of the track at Taj Nagar Halt and even after repeatedly blowing the
engine whistle, the person did not move away and was hit by the left
side of the engine throwing him on the track. The DRM report took
into account the death report, post mortem report, site plan of the
place of occurrence and the report of the SHO besides that of other
witnesses in reaching the conclusion that the deceased had not fallen
from any running train, but was hit by the above-noted train when he
was inattentively walking on the tracks. Further, it was categorical
version of Mahinder Singh, Boarding Clerk that the deceased had been
hit by a train, which is recorded as “… .. …. … … …. …… …
.. ….”. The proceedings before the learned RCT are summary in

nature and the objection that loco pilot was not examined by the
learned RCT cannot be sustained in law.
12. Last but not the least, no rail ticket was found from the body of
the deceased. The Jamatalashi of the deceased, which was taken soon
after the accident shows that his bag containing books and mobile
phone were recovered from the site and there was no recovery of any
journey ticket. Version of AW-2 that that train ticket was taken out of
the jacket of the deceased is not fathomable.
13. In view of the foregoing discussions, it is difficult to discern
that deceased was travelling as a bonafide passenger on any train and
that he fell out of the running train as claimed by the appellants.
14. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
JANUARY 25, 2024
sp