ANITA DEVI & ORS. vs UNION OF INDIA

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 29 November 2023
Judgment pronounced on : 04 January 2024
+ FAO 169/2022
ANITA DEVI & ORS. ….. Appellants
Through: Mr. Ravi Sabharwal and Ms.
Khushboo, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC with
Ms. Ira Singh and Ms. Pranjal
Mathur, Advs.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
J U D G M E N T

1. This is a statutory appeal filed under Section 23 of The
Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 19871 by the claimants/appellants for
setting aside the impugned order dated 17.01.2022, passed by the
Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, hereinafter referred
as the „RCT” in O.A.(IIu) DLI/CHD/21/2020, where the learned RCT
had dismissed the claim petition of the petitioners for compensation.

1 The RCT

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The appellants/claimants are the widow, children and mother of
the deceased Ramavatar. It is the case of the petitioners / appellants
that Sh. Ramavatar, the deceased herein, was residing at village

Prempura, Alwar, Rajasthan, and he used to travel very frequently to
Bawal, Haryana for undertaking the work of masonry. His younger
brother Sh. Sohan Lal, was residing at Bawal and he stayed with him
sometimes depending on his work.
3. It was stated that on 23.12.2018, the deceased could not get any
work so he decided to return back to his village Alwar; and that the
deceased with the help of his brother, purchased a General Ticket
bearing No. J-00861484 dated 23.12.2018 to travel back to his village
and boarded the Jaisalmer Inter City Express (14659) train at around 8
P.M. It was claimed that on the unfortunate night of 23.12.2018, when
the aforesaid train reached near KM No. 15/9-16/0, between Bawal –
Ajarka station, the deceased accidentally fell down from the running
train during the course of the journey and sustained fatal injuries. The
dead body was found on 24.12.18 at about 2 am by the RPF (Railway
Protection Force) staff on duty, who informed the Station Master,
Bawal.
4. The appellants initially filed a claim petition under Section 16
of the RCT Act before the Chandigarh bench, but due to lack of
territorial jurisdiction, the matter was then transferred to RCT
Principal Bench, Delhi on 12.09.2019.
5. The respondent/ Railways contested the claim petition and
relied on the report of the Divisional Railway Manager (for short
„DRM”) and denied the claim by stating that the body was found on
“Dn” track whereas the said journey for which the ticket was
purchased i.e., Bawal to Alwar, was for an Up track/direction journey.
They further stated that the Train No. 14659 Jaisalmer Intercity

Express was being escorted by the Railway Protection Force (RPF)
staff, who had not witnessed any such incident happening during the
course of journey from Rewari to Phulera.
6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed by the learned RCT:

“1. Whether the deceased was a Bona Fide passenger of train at the
time of incident?
2. Whether the alleged incident is covered within the ambit of
Section 123(c) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act?
3. Whether the applicants are the only dependents of the deceased?
4. Relief if any?”

7. Suffice to state that the learned RCT held that there was no
dispute that the deceased was found in possession of a valid rail ticket
and it was also held that the dead body was found lying at KM 15/9-
16/0 between Bawal and Ajarka in the middle of the Dn track, which
was also recorded vide DD No.2 at 2:00 A.M. in the inquest
proceedings. However, the learned RCT considering the nature of
injuries in the post mortem report and the claim of the appellants that
deceased was travelling in Up direction and due to accidental fall, his
body fell on Dn track did not favour the tribunal. In its decision, the
learned RCT relied on its earlier decision in Deepa Devi and others
v. Union of India (claim application no. OA2U114/18). Hence, it was
held that the death did not occur due to falling from the train and it
was not a case of an „untoward incident2″. The impugned decision is
now under challenge in this appeal.

2 Section 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)

ANYALYSIS AND DECISION

8. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties at the Bar and on
considering the entire record of this case including the digital Lower
Court Record3, I am afraid that the impugned order passed by the
learned RCT cannot be sustained in law. It would be relevant to
reproduce the reasons that prevailed in the mind of the learned RCT in
finding Issue No. 2 against the claimants, which reads as under:-

3 LCR

“We find from the records filed before us that on at around 1 a.m.
on 24.8.2018, Ashok Kumar Yadav engaged in track patrolling
duty while doing his work found one dead body lying at Km 15/9-
16/0 between Bawal and Ajarka in the middle of Dn track. He
informed the same over phone to Lalaram Meena, Station
Master/Bawal, who sent Points man to the site and informed all
concerned and also made an entry in Station register a copy of
same has been filed at page 71 of DRM report, memo to GRP and
RPF/Rewari was issued by Station Superintendent, Rewari at 2 am
(Page 70 of DRM report). GRP officials made DD No 2 at 2.20
hours and reached the site and started Panchayatnama proceedings
wherein it is noted the body was found in the middle of Dn track.
From the Panchayatnama (Ex. A-3) it is to be seen that body was
cut in three parts, head was crushed and amputated and lying
separated from neck, both legs were crushed and amputated and
both hands were broken at shoulder Post-mortem report mention
injuries such as:-
-Traumatic amputation of neck, both lower limbs, and both upper
limbs present.
– Tatoo mark (……. -…..), front of left forearm
– Head and lace crushed
During course of arguments Learned counsel for the applicant
urged that the deceased was travelling in Up direction and due to
accidental fall body of deceased came on the Dn track. We are
afraid that Counsel for applicants has concocted an improbable and
unconvincing version. There is always distance between two
railway tracks and as per Counsel for applicants the deceased was
travelling in a train going towards Up side but due to fall his body
came on another i.e. Dn track. A Division Bench of the Tribunal to
which one of us (Sh. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) was a party while
dealing with a similar matter held as under:-

In the case of Smt. Deepa Devi and others vs. Union of India
through the General Manger Northern Railway, New Delhi in
Claim application no. OA2U114/18 decided on 8/8/2019, the
Division Bench of the Tribunal had noted the distance between the
two railway lines. The relevant portion of the judgment rendered
by the Division Bench of the Tribunal in case of Deepa Devi Vs.
Union of India (supra) reads as under-
“We have also gone through the Addendum and Corrigendum Slip
(ACS) No. 27 dated 17.07.2019 to the Indian Railways Schedule of
Dimensions, 1676 mm Gauge (BG) Revised, 2004. As per the
amendment carried it is specifically provided that for existing
works, the minimum distance, centre to centre of two railway lines
on straight tracks will be 4265 mm and for new works in addition
to the existing works, distance between two railway lines from
centre to centre will be 5300 mm.”
Therefore, it cannot be believed that due to fall from standing train
on off side the body of the deceased will fall on another track at a
considerable distance.
The dead body, in no case, can fall from one track going on one
side to middle of another track. Relying upon the above Judgment
and also taking into account the various injuries as is evident from
Post Mortem Report we are inclined to accept the submissions
made by the respondent that the death had occurred in this case not
due to falling from any train and we therefore hold that untoward
incident is not proved in this case and accordingly we decide issue
no.2 against the applicant. The nature of injuries rule out fall from
the train, rather lead to an inference otherwise.”

9. Ex-facie, the aforesaid reasons are absolutely flawed and belies
common sense and logic. At the cost of repetition, the learned RCT
rendered a categorical finding that the dead body of the deceased was
found on the railway track having valid railway ticket evidencing
travel from Alwar by Intercity Express to Bawal, and therefore, he
was a bona-fide4 passenger within the meaning of Section 2(29) of the
Railways Act, 19895.

4 Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989, a passenger means a person travelling with a valid
pass or ticket.
5 RA

10. No mileage can be taken by the respondent/Railways from the
fact that the dead body of the deceased was found on Dn line track at
KM 15/9-16/0. That alone would not invite a conclusive presumption
that the deceased did not fall out of a running train. It is pertinent to
mention here that as per the post mortem report No. 392/2018
conducted on 24.12.2018 at 12:45 PM, it was found that there were
Traumatic amputation of neck, both lower limbs, and both upper limbs
present and the cause of death was opined to be head injury, shock and
haemorrhage as a result of multiple antemortem injuries sustained to
the multiple body parts, produced by blunt force impact which could
be possible in a railway track accident. The dead body of the deceased
was evidently found at 2:10 AM on 24.12.2018 as recorded in DD
No.2. It is also an admitted fact that the Intercity Express Train had
passed through the tracks in the area where the body was found.
11. The observation of the learned RCT that as a result of fall from
the Up line, the body could not be fallen on the down track and the
assumption that the deceased would not have died by falling from the
train on Up line track is not fathomable. The said aspect has not been
cogently established by the respondent/Railways. It does not divine
the eyes to appreciate that, after the fall of the body, its landing on the
railway tracks must have depended on the speed of the Intercity
Express Train.
12. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the
deceased, it is evident that he was run by another passing train either
immediately after the fall or sometimes thereafter. Reliance by the
learned RCT on its earlier decision in Deepa Devi and others v.

Union of India about the distance between the two tracks is lost into
oblivion when it is an admitted fact that the railway route in question
was a busy one and there was no evidence led by the
respondent/Railways regarding the passing of any other train during
the relevant time on the Dn tracks.
13. All said and done, once it is proven that the deceased was
travelling as a bona fide passenger and he fell from a running train, the
respondent/railways cannot avoid its liability. Further, no issue can be
raised regarding any negligence on the part of the passenger either.
Mere fact that the Railway Protection Force did not notice any
accident or falling of any passenger from the train is also not
conclusive. As a matter of fact, the Inquest Report No. 205 dated
24.12.2018 also indicated that the deceased had died as a result of
railway accident. It also stares on the face of the record that the place
of the incident was far away from Bawal and there is no issue raised
that the deceased tried to dis-board a running train and in any case the
issue of negligence on the part of the deceased would be irrelevant.
Therefore, in all human probabilities the deceased died due to an
untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of The Railways
Act, 19896.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court has no hesitation
in setting-aside the impugned order dated 17.01.2022 passed by the
learned RCT. The same is set-aside. Consequently, the claimants are

6 (i) Not Relevant
(ii)Not Relevant
(iii)Not Relevant
(2)The accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.

awarded the statutory compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with the interest
@ 9% p.a. from the date of accident i.e., 23.12.2018 till its realization.
The amount of compensation be apportioned in the following
manner:-

(i) 50% of the amount with interest in favour of the appellant No.1
Smt. Anita Devi being the wife of the deceased;
(ii)10% with interest to each of the appellant Nos. 2 to 5 who are
the children of the deceased;
(iii)Remaining 10% to appellant No. 6 Smt. Rampyari being the
mother of the deceased.

15. The compensation be paid to the appellants within two months
from today, failing which the respondent/railways shall be liable to
pay the same @ 12% p.a.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
JANUAYR 04, 2024
sp