BHURA vs UNION OF INDIA

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 11 December 2023
Judgment pronounced on : 04 January 2024
+ FAO 363/2014
BHURA ….. Appellant
Through: Mr. Kapil Kishor Kaushik and
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, Sr.
Panel Counsel with Ms. Neha
Yadav, Adv.
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 appellant/claimant assailing the
impugned order dated 21.05.2014 passed by the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Principal bench, Delhi2, whereby the claim application
bearing No. O.A. (IIu) No. 414/ 2011, filed under Section 16 of the
RCT Act was dismissed.

1 RCT Act

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. Briefly stated, it was the case of the appellant/ claimant that in
the intervening night of 17/18th May, 2011, his son Sh. Gabroo, aged
22 years, was travelling from Raja ka Sahaspur to Delhi by the train
and accidentally fell down from the running train near Shahdara

2 RCT
3 RA

Station due to a sudden jerk and jostling amongst the passengers
inside the coach and sustained grievous injuries all over his body. He
was rushed to GTB hospital but succumbed to injuries during the
course of his treatment on 18.05.2011. Thus, the claimant being father
of the deceased, filed a claim petition under section 125 of the
Railways Act, 19893, seeking a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- as statutory
compensation.
3. During the proceedings before the learned RCT, the
appellant/claimant in support of his claim filed 23 documents, marked
as A-01 to A-23 and was duly cross examined. On the other hand, the
respondent had filed the Written Statements along with the inquiry
report refuting the claims and stating that the alleged incident was not
an „untoward Incident”4.
4. The following issues were framed by the learned RCT :

“(i) Whether the death of the deceased had occurred as a result of
an untoward incident, as defined under section 123(c)(2) of the
RA?
(ii) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train on the
relevant day ?
(iii) Whether the application of Shri Bhura is maintainable ?
(iv) To what order / relief ?”

5. The learned RCT while adjudicating the matter observed that no
other passenger saw Gabroo falling from the train and the train by which
the deceased was travelling remains unidentified. It was further observed
that the applicant has not filed any investigation report in regard to
Gabroo”s death and only one page death report titled “unnatural death by

4 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)

violence” dated 18.05.2011 (Ext. A-8) was filed as evidence, which does
not substantiate that the deceased died after falling from the train.
6. Further, the deposition of the appellant that the deceased was
travelling with a valid rail ticket was not believed, holding that the that
the death certificate (Ext. A-16) clearly recorded that there were “no
valuable things on the body”, and thus, the appellant was lying through
his teeth and had filed fabricated and doctored documents. Hence, he
was made not entitled to any compensation. Issue No.4 was also
decided against the appellant holding that the deceased did not die in
any „untoward incident”.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

7. The applicant / claimant in the instant appeal allude to the aspect
that learned RCT for whimsical reasons overlooked the version of the
eye witness that the deceased had fallen from a running train and the
belongings of the deceased seized by the Police from the spot were
handed over to the appellant containing a rail ticket. The decision of
learned RCT is assailed as being based on reckless conjecture and
surmises.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION:

8. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the rival parties and on perusal of
the record, although at first blush it appeared that there is no legal
infirmity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned
RCT, but on meticulous perusal of the record, I find that the impugned

order cannot be sustained in law.
9. In order to appreciate the factual and legal controversy in
question, it would be expedient to reproduced the observations of the
learned RCT while deciding issues No. 1 and 2, against the appellant,
which read as under:-
10. “Issue Nos. 01 & 02.

06. The applicant claims that on the intervening night of
17/18.05.2011, his eighteen year old son, while travelling by train
from Raja ka Sahaspur to Delhi, accidentally fell down from the
running train near Shahdara station, due to a sudden jerk and
jostling of passengers inside the coach and sustained grievous
injury all over his body. According to the applicant, Gabroo was
rushed to GTB Hospital, but succumbed to his injuries during the
course of treatment on 18.05.2011.
07. No other passenger travelling by the so called over crowded
compartment, saw Gabroo falling from the train. No one seems to
have identified the train, because the applicant does not mention
the name/no of the train by which Gabroo was travelling. As per
Station Master’s memo, addressed to GRP/DSA, dtd. 18.05.2011,
time 04.00 Hrs., a man with a severed hand was found lying
injured behind signal no. 11 in between Main and loop lone at Km
6/21. As per the applicant’s own statement before the tribunal on
20.11.2013, he came to know about the incident at 08.00 AM of
18.05.2011. Further, Gabroo died without giving any statement to
anyone because as per medical report, he was unfit to record any
statement (Ext. A-14). Yet, the applicant give graphic details
regarding Gabroo’s journey from Raja Ka Sahaspur up to the
lacation, where the deceased fell accidentally from the train. It is
surprising that the applicant does not know the name of the train
but knows that „there was huge rush inside the train compartment’,
the deceased ‘got enough standing space near the gate’, ‘he was
well inside the train compartment’, the train ‘jerked violently’, and
‘due to this jerk Gabroo received a thrust from inside the train
compartment and he fell down from the running train’. The
question here is who provided Bhura with such details in regard to
his son’s last journey by train. Obviously, he is narrating his own
version of the incident for the purpose of the claim. I therefore,
give no credence to the claim made by the applicant vide Annex.I
of his claim application, supported by his affidavit, dtd. 19.11.2013
(Ext. Aw-01).

08. The statement of Bhura before the Tribunal on 20.11.2013
(Ext. C-1) that he received the news of his son’s injury at 08 AM
on 18.05.2011 from police, does not appear to be true. The MLC
No. B2546/11, dtd. 18.05.2011 (Ext. A-15), indicates that Gabroo
was admitted in GTB Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi at 05.45 AM by
ASI/Ramesh of PCR B-33 as unknown male of 22 years. The death
certificate (Ext. A-16), supported by death summary (Ext.A-9),
issued by Dr. Mahesh Kumar of GTB Hospital, both dtd.
19.05.2011, confirm that he died a ‘unknown male 22 years’ at
07.00 PM on 18.05.2011 and till then no one from the family has
come to see Gabroo. The report of GRP/Shahdara, DDNo. 22, dtd.
18.05.2011 (Ext. A-3) confirms that at 08.25 PM the on duty
constable Mahesh of GRP received the information on phone that
the unknown male aged 22 years, who met with an accident in the
morning and was admitted in GTB Hospital, expired during the
course of treatment. In fact, presence of Bhura and the
identification of his son, Gabroo get recorded only in the Post
Mortem report (Ext. A-12), when the body was taken for autopsy at
2.00 PM of 19.05.2011. So the identification of Gabroo and the
relay of information by police to Bhura at 8 AM on 18.05.2011 as
claimed by the applicant is a lie told for the purpose of the claim.
09. GRP/ Shahdara, who received the news of injury sustained
by an unidentified youth from Dy. SS/Shahdara at 4 Hrs of
18.05.2011 (Ext. R-13) took no action to assist the victim or to
investigate the matter. DD No. 05, dtd. 18.05.2011 (Ext. A-1)
confirms that at 05.05 hrs. SI Brahm Dev came to know from PGR
Van about the unidentified man lying injured near platform no. 4.
Interestingly, the applicant has not filed any investigation report of
SI Brahma Dev, the IO in this case, in regard to Gabroo”s death.
Only a part (one page) of the death report-unnatural death by
violence dtd. 18.05.2011 (Ext. A-8) has been filed as evidence,
which does not clarify how it could be concluded that Gabroo died
after falling from a train. The second part of the report seems to
have been concealed for reasons best known to the applicant.

10. The applicant has filed DD No. 5, dtd. 19.05.2011 (Ext. A-5),
which is said to be the statement of one Mohit Jain, a vendor of
Shahdara Railway station. As per his statement, on 18.05.2011 at
around 4AM, he saw a 22 year old person falling from a Delhi
bound train near platform no. 04 of Shahdara station. According to
him, the victim whose hand got amputed, was rushed to hospital by
PCR Van. However, the report of Departmental Enquiry,
conducted by Sr. DSC/New Delhi (Ext. R-2) claims that Mohit
Jain, the so called eyewitness of GRP/Shahdara informed the IO
that on 18.05.2011 SI Brahma Dev of GRP/Shahdara obtained his
signature on a blank paper. According to him, he neither saw

anyone falling, from train nor informed the PCR Van at no. 100. I
have reasons to believe the above claim of the respondent because
police documents, connected to this case, prepared by SI/Brahm
Dev raises serious doubts.
11. As per police report of GRP/Shahdara (Exts. A-2 &A-4)
Gabroo was identified by police from the articles recovered from
his person at 07.40 AM of 18.05.2011. However, DD No. 22 PP,
dtd. 18.05.2011 of GRP/Shahdara (Ext. A-3) reveals that at 08.25
PM constable Mahesh No. 1477 received information that the
‘unidentified’ person has died in GTB Hospital. The medical reports
in connection with the treatment of Gabroo i.e. the MLC report
(Ext. A-15), the death summary (Ext. A-9) and the death certificate
(Ext. A-16), prepared after his death at 7 PM, refer to the deceased
as unidentified male aged 22 years. This confirms that SI
Brahm Dev of GRP/Shahdara fabricated/manufactured documents
to circulate the cock and bull story that Gabroo was identified from
the diary, which was recovered from his person.
12. The applicant claims that the deceased was travelling with a
general II class ticket bearing no. 28175 from Raja Ka Sahaspur to
Delhi and this ticket was recovered from his person after the
incident by the GRP. A printed card ticket bearing the above
details have been filed as Ext. A-18. The Jama Talashi report i.e.
DD No. 22 PP, dtd. 18.05.2011 (Ext. A-11) and DD No. 9 PP, dtd.
18.05.2011 filed by ‘GRP/Shahdara state that at 07.40 Hrs Gabroo
was identified after the recovery of a purse containing Rs. 120/-, as
railway ticket bearing no. 28175 and a diary from his person. The
Jama Talashi report (Ext. A-11), further states that all the items
were returned to Bhura. However, as stated earlier, this information
turns out to be a false, because as per DD No. 22 of the same police
(Ext.A-3),supported by medical records of GTB Hospital (Ext.A-9,
A-15 & A-16) Gabroo was not identified till his death at 07 PM of
18.05.2011. Moreover, the death certificate (Ext. A-16), clearly
records ‘no valuable things in the body’, the repot of the
Departmental Enquiry (Ext. R-12) also shows that Ms. Jameelan
the wife/mother of the applicant/deceased told the IO that
GRP/Shahdara did not return any item belonging to the deceased to
the family.
13. Thus, it stand proved that no ticket was recovered from the
person of the deceased and the ‘Jama Talashi’ DD No. 22 PP, dtd.
18.05.2011 (Ext. A-11), is fabricated/manufactured document. The
fact is that a rail ticket has been procured clandestinely and a story
has been built that it was recovered from the person of the
deceased.

14. In the light of the facts recorded above, I have no doubt in
my mind that Gabroo was neither a bonafide rail passenger on

18.05.2011 nor did he die after falling from any train on that day at
Shahdara station. Accordingly, the above issues are decided against
the applicant.”

11. A careful perusal of the aforesaid reasoning would show that
the learned RCT was swayed away by the fact that AW-1, the
appellant in his evidence testified that he received the news of death of
his son at 08.00 a.m. on 18.05.2011 whereas the entire Daily Diary
(DD) entries, MLC Report and the death summary report record the
aspect of victim/deceased remaining unidentified till about 8.25 p.m.
on 18.05.2011. Secondly, learned RCT found that the death certificate
(Ex/A-16) records „no valuable things on the body” and the
jamatalashi report DD No. 22 PP Railway Shahdara dated
18.05.2011, was a fabricated document.
12. I have no hesitation in holding that learned RCT miserably
failed to appreciate the evidence on the record in right perspective and
the conclusions drawn are absolutely unconscionable and flawed.
First things first, on information by the PCR, there was recorded DD
No.5 PP dated 18.05.2011 at PP Railway Shahdara at 5/5.05 a.m.
about some „unknown person” lying injured near Shahdara Railway
Station Platform No.4. The MLC report of the deceased at Guru Teg
Bahadur Hospital [“GTB Hospital”] records that victim was brought
to the hospital by Police/PCR at around 5.30 a.m. in the morning with
an alleged history of being involved in a train accident at 04:00 a.m.,
who was administered medical treatment at around 5.45 a.m. when he
was found „unfit” to make statement.
13. Pursuant to the aforesaid DD No. 5 PP, the Investigating Officer

visited the spot and on coming back recorded DD NO. 9 PP dated
18.05.2011 at 7.40 a.m. at PP Railway Shahdara to the effect that the
unknown victim, who met with an accident near platform No.4, had
been moved to GTB Hospital by the PCR and then the appellant went
to GTB Hospital where the name of victim was found to be Gabroo @
Bablu S/o Bhura aged about 22 years resident of Village Sataran PS
Bilari, District Muradabad, UP. As per the death summary of the
deceased prepared at GTB Hospital, he died due to a „cardiac arrest” at
07:00 p.m. It appears that the information was recorded vide DD No.
22 PP dated 18.05.2011 at 08.25 p.m. that the „unknown victim” had
died in the Hospital.
14. What is discernible is that the identity of the deceased had been
ascertained by the HC Om Prakash from PP Railway Shahdara
recorded in DD No. 9 PP in the morning that very day but in the
Hospital record, the identity of the deceased was not recorded. It is
pertinent to mention that the statement of one Mr. Mohit Jain was
recorded by HC Om Prakash, who disclosed that he had seen the
victim falling from the train who was coming from Ghaziabad to
Delhi, as a result of which his hand got amputated and he sustained
bodily injuries and was moved by the PCR to the Hospital. Since the
identity of the deceased had been established by the HC Om Prakash
at 7.40 a.m. on 18.05.2011, the deposition of AW-1/appellant that he
had come to know about the death of his son at 08:00 a.m. cannot be
questioned at all. Infact, the IO, SI Brahm Dev PP Shahdara, recorded
the statement of one Abdul Sattar S/o Mr. Anwar Ahmad from village
Noorpur Thana Memodar, District Ghaziabad, UP to the effect that he

came to know about the death of his nephew Gabroo in the morning of
18.05.2011, who had met with a train accident at Shahdara Railway
Station.
15. In the aforesaid backdrop, when we come to DD No.3 PP dated
19.05.2011 at PP Railway Shahdara recorded at 12.30 a.m. on
19.05.2011 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C., it records that the MLC
report of the deceased bearing No. B-2546/11 pertaining to an
unidentified male was received and after going to the site, some
personal belongings of the deceased were recovered including viz.,
Rs. 130/-, one diary and one railway ticket No. 28175 for journey
from Raja Ka Shahaspur to Delhi by SI Brahm Dev. It is then
recorded vide DD No. 22 dated 18.05.2011 at PP Railway Shahdara
that dead body of the deceased was identified by his father i.e., the
appellant and vide memo (fard hawalgi saman) SI Brahm Dev handed
over the personal belongings of the deceased to his father.
16. Thus, without further ado, the observations by the learned RCT
that there was any fabrication or interpolation on the part of
appellant/father is absolutely atrocious and completely unfathomable.
It must be appreciated that the appellant, who was rural man, had no
say in the preparation of the MLC report and/or the death summary of
his deceased son. The hospital authorities in a routine recorded the
name/detail of the deceased as „unknown male”. It is but obvious that
their primary duty was to save the life of the deceased and his
name/details were not essential. Since the identify of the deceased had
been ascertained by HC Om Prakash, which was recorded vide DD
No. 9 PP dated 18.05.2011 at 07.40 a.m., the remarks in the Death

Summary that „nothing valuable things found on the body” in common
parlance would only convey that deceased was not having any
valuables on his body in the sense of wrist watch, gold ring, chain or
anything else.
17. Lastly, the post mortem report clearly brought out that the
deceased had suffered heavy blunt impact on his head and his right
arm was amputated from elbow, and it must be seen that he was in
extreme pain and it was not expected of him that he could carry his
own belongings to the Hospital. It manifests that the concern of the
PCR at that time was to move the victim to the hospital. In all
probabilities based on the aforesaid facts and circumstances, HC Om
Prakash from PP Railway Shahdara was able to retrieve the
belongings of the deceased in the ordinary discharge of his duties.
There arise no question over the jamatalashi vide DD No. 22 dated
18.05.2011 at PP Railway Shahdara prepared by Sub Inspector
Braham Dev. If the learned RCT had any doubts over the authenticity
of the fard hawalgi saman vide DD No. 22, it could have very well
summoned the concerned police official in exercise of his powers
vested under Section 18(3) of the RCT Act. Anyways, any doubts
over DD NO. 22 is misplaced and untenable.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is brought out that a
ticket was indeed recovered from the body of the deceased during the
investigation of the matter in the ordinary course of business. Hence,
the deceased was a bonafide passenger under Section 2(29) of the
RCT Act.

All the aforesaid facts clearly lead to an inference that the victim had

been either hit by train or had fallen from the running train at the
platform, and therefore, the deceased died in an „untoward incident”
within the meaning of Section 123(c) (2)5 of the RA.
FINAL ORDER:

5 (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers

19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present appeal is
allowed and the impugned order dated 21.05.2014 passed by learned
RCT is hereby set aside. The appellant is made entitled to a statutory
compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from
the date of incident i.e. 18.05.2011 till the date of its realization.
However, during the course of evidence it also comes out that the
deceased was also survived by his mother, namely Mst. Jamilan.
Accordingly, the compensation be apportioned in two equal halves i.e.
50:50 in favour of the appellant with interest. The amount be paid to
the appellant and his wife i.e., the mother of the deceased within 45
days from today, failing which the respondent/Railway shall be liable
to pay compensation with interest @ 12% till its realization.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
JANUARY 04, 2024
Sadique