UNION OF INDIA vs POONAM & ORS.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 29 November 2023
Judgment pronounced on : 04 January 2024
+ FAO 57/2021 and CM APPL. 5340/2021
UNION OF INDIA ….. Appellant
Through: Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC
versus
POONAM & ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Dhyam Singh Sisodia, Adv.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
J U D G M E N T

1. This judgment shall decide a statutory appeal preferred by the
appellant/Railways under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal
Act, 19871 assailing the judgment/order dated 06.10.2020 passed by
the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench,2 whereby
statutory compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest @ 9 % has been
awarded to the respondents/claimants from the date of accident. The
claim petition was filed by respondent No.1, young widow of the
deceased along with her parents-in-law viz., respondent Nos. 2 and 3
being the father and the mother of the deceased.

1 The Act

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. It was the case of the respondents/claimants that on 28.04.2017,
the deceased, namely Shiloo aged about 25 years was travelling from

2 RCTPB

Tundla to Aligarh having a valid second-class ordinary ticket and
when the train reached near the level crossing at Pala, Sahibabad,
there was a sudden jerk in the momentum of the train and due to the
jostling of the crowd, deceased Shiloo fell down from the train and
sustained grievous injuries resulting in his death.
3. The appellant/Railways in the claim petition, who were arrayed
as respondent, in its written statement contested the claim stating that
the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and rather Sh. Vinod
Kumar i.e. uncle(tau) of the deceased had reported to PS Sasani Gate,
Aligarh State of Uttar Pradesh within the jurisdiction of which
accident occurred that the deceased along with his relative had gone to
attend a marriage function in the family at Pala, Sahibabaad and he
died on being run over by some train.
4. The learned RCT on consideration of the pleadings framed the
following issues:-

“(i) Whether the applicants/claimants are dependants of the deceased?
(ii). Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger in the train in
question at the time of incident?
(iii). Whether deceased died in an untoward incident as alleged and
defined under the Provision of Section 123(c) of Railways Act, 1989?
(iv). Relief, if any?”

5. Learned RCT decided Issue No.1 in favour of the claimants. As
regards, Issue Nos. 2 and 3, learned RCT believed the version of the
appellant No.1-wife that the deceased was travelling with a valid
general ticket which had been seized by the police official of PS
Sasani Gate, Aligarh; and therefore it was held that deceased was a
bonafide passenger. Coming to the issue as to whether the deceased

died consequent to an „untoward incident” as defined under Section
123 (c) of The Railways Act, 1989, the learned RCT relied on the
information given to PS Sasani Gate, Aligarh recorded at 23:30 hours
in the panchnama dated 29.04.2017 starting at 00:00 hours and
continue till 06 hours that suggested that the deceased died due to
falling from a running train and considering the nature of injuries
sustained by the deceased as reflected in the post mortem, a finding
was given that deceased died due an „untoward incident”; and
accordingly allowed the claim petition.
6. The appellant/Railways are in appeal and it is vehemently
submitted that the deceased did not die due to “untoward incident” but
in all probability he was guilty of his own negligence as he was struck
by a train while he was crossing the railway tracks at Pala, Sahibabad.

ANYALYSIS AND DECISION

7. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced by learned counsels for the parties and on meticulous
perusal of the record, I am afraid the impugned order passed by the
learned RCT cannot be sustained on facts and law. Firstly, it would be
pertinent to refer to the reasoning accorded by the learned RCT in
deciding Issue Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of the claimants, which read as
under:-

“Issue No.2 & 3

“Since both the issues are inter-related they have been taken
together for the sake of convenience. Although the applicant has
mentioned in her claim application that the journey ticket is in the
possession of PS Sasani Gate, Aligarh but nowhere it has been
disclosed by the Counsel for the Applicant. During the argument,
counsel for the applicant submitted that the police officials did not
handover the journey ticket to the applicant. As per Panchnama,
journey ticket was not recovered. The applicant has filed her

affidavit mentioning that applicant was travelling with a valid
journey ticket. Now a decision has to be taken with regard to
bonafide of the passenger.
I have relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in Civil Appeal No. 1945 of 2018 (ACJ 1441) Union of
India v/s Rina Devi 17.4 of which states as under:
“We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the
Railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that
injured or deceased was a bonafide passenger for
which claim for compensation could be maintained.
However, mere absence of ticket with such injured
or deceased will not negative the chum that he was a
bonafide passenger. Initial burden will be on the
claimant which can be discharged by filling an
affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then
shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided
on the facts shown or the attending circumstances.
This will have to be dealt from case to case on the
basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard
will stand explained accordingly.”
The affidavit in this case filed by the applicant has
discharged her initial burden of the relevant facts and the
respondent has not led any evidence contrary to this to prove that
the deceased was travelling without ticket. In view of this issue
number 2 is decided in favour of the applicants

Regarding untoward incident as stated above the respondent
has vehemently submitted that the death of late Shiloo was a result
of run over by some train. In support of this respondent has relied
upon the statement of Vinod Kumar mentioning him as … of the
deceased that he gave an application to PS Sasani Gate, Aligarh
mentioning that deceased and his relatives had come to Pala
Sahibabad for attending marriage ceremony of their nephew, Roop
Kishore and the death of the Shiloo was as a result of run over.
However, it is noted that no document has been filed in support of
this conclusion drawn by the respondent. It is further noted that the
entire DRM report is made on the basis of findings of the
Investigating Officer Post Commander RPF post, Aligarh which is
based on the submission of Vinod Kumar. The Panchnama is dated
28.04.2017 wherein it is noted that information was given to PS
Sasani Gate, Aligarh by RT through Charli (…… RT …… Charli) at
23:30 hours and the Panchnama commenced on 29.04.2017 at
00:00 hours and continued all 6:00 hours and cause of the death
mentioned is “Injuries due to entangling with the train” (….. .. ….. …
…) and the nature of the injuries mentioned are left leg broken at
knee and thigh, left hand broken at wrist and right leg broken from

thigh, abrasion on palm and head injury. The Post mortem report
also mentions crush injury 20*21 inch in left side head and face
underline bones fractured of skull, abrasion on right shoulder joint,
lacerated wound is present in right side chest, multiple abrasion
and left leg and both legs fractured etc. From the injuries
probability of deceased sustaining these injuries as a result of fall
from a running train cannot be ruled out. The respondent has not
submitted any document to support their proposition that the
deceased died as a result of run over by a train. In case of run over
of a train the loco pilot or the guard of the train is expected to
notice and report to the adjoining railway station but in this case no
such action has been reported and evidence produced by
Respondent in spite of the fact that Tundla to Aligarh is one of the
busiest sections. The circumstantial evidence suggest that the fatal
injury of the deceased was as a result of falling from a train and
therefore issue number 3 is decided in favour of the applicant and
the accidental falling in this case fall within the Provisions of
Section 123(c) of Railways Act, 1989”

8. A careful perusal of the aforesaid reasoning vis-a-vis, the digital
LCR3 would show that learned RCT failed in its duty to consider the
fact that the incident was recorded on 28.04.2017 at 23:30 hrs and the
inquest that continued for about 6 hours in terms of Section 174 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure would show that it was recorded in the
presence of Panchas (witnesses) including one Vinod Kumar, S/o Sh.
Udai Ram Singh, elder uncle of the deceased that the victim had been
struck by the train. To be precise, it was recorded in Hindi that “….. ..
….. … … … ……. .. ….”. In fact DD No. 58 recorded at Sasani
Gate at 13:30 hours on 28.04.2017 also relayed the information that
one unknown person had been struck by train at Pala Fatak i.e., the
railway crossing.
9. Further, the DRM dated 22.02.2019 although done almost after
a year and ten months would also show that during the enquiry the

3 Lower Court Record

widow of the deceased had stated that her husband along with his Tau
Vinod Kumar and other members of the family had gone to Sahibabad
in the wedding of nephew Roop Kishore and he was struck by train
“……. ….. .. ….. …. .. …. .. ..” .
10. It stares on the face of the record that no railway ticket was
found from the possession or jamatalashi of the deceased. Evidently,
the wife of the deceased was not an eye-witness to the incident but the
family member of the deceased including Vinod Kumar and others
who had gone to attend the wedding in the family. The post mortem
report also brings out that the deceased had suffered a crush injury
20×21 inches left side of the head and his skull was impacted with
blunt impact, abrasions on the right shoulder joint, lacerated wound on
the right side chest, multiple abrasion on the left upper limbs as well
as lower limbs and left leg and both legs fractured that would raise an
inference that the deceased died as a result of being hit by a running
train while he was probably crossing the railway tracks. Merely
because the DRM report was made belatedly on 01.07.2019, does not
create any substantive legal right in favour of the respondents/
claimants.
11. In view of the foregoing reasons, unfortunate as it may appear,
although a life was lost, there was no fault on the part of the Railways,
and therefore, the impugned order dated 06.10.2020 cannot be
sustained in law, and the same is hereby set-aside. If the amount of
compensation has been deposited with the Railway Claims Tribunal,
the same be returned to the appellant/Union of India with accrued

interest, if any. In the event, the amount of compensation has been
released to the respondents/claimants, learned RCT shall initiate
appropriate proceedings for recovery or refund of the said amount of
compensation. The pending application also stands disposed of.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
JANUARY 04, 2024
sp