UNION OF INDIA vs BAZAR @ ISTAQ

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 30 October 2023
Judgment pronounced on : 21 November 2023
+ FAO 215/2017 & CM APPL. 17711/2017
UNION OF INDIA ….. Appellant
Through: Ms. Neetu Singh, proxy counsel
on behalf of Mr. Raj Kumar for
UOI.
versus
BAZAR @ ISTAQ ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Yogesh Swaroop, Mr.
Kunal Sharma, Mr. A. Kumar,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/Union of India under
Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 19871 assailing
judgment dated 05.12.2016 passed by the learned Presiding Officer
Railways Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi2 whereby the claim
petition of the applicant/respondent was allowed in OA (IIU) No.
28/2016.

1 RCT Act

BRIEF FACTS:

2. Briefly stated, a claim petition was filed by the applicant, who
is the respondent in the present appeal, claiming that on 12.02.2015 he
was travelling in passenger Train 1-DJ from Ghevra to Rohtak
Railway Station along with Ismil and two other persons on the

2 RCT

strength of valid second class ordinary tickets, when due to a sudden
jerk/jolt and push/pull of the passengers, he fell down at Ghevra
Station and came under the running train resulting in amputation of
both his legs below the knee. It was claimed that some money, papers
and tickets were kept in his shirt pocket, which were lost at the spot
due to the accident.
3. The claim petition was contested by the Railways/Union of
India inter alia defending the claim on the ground that the claimant
was a not „bonafide passenger” as he was travelling without a valid
rail ticket and that he attempted to board a running train and was
therefore guilty of negligence in doing so.

IMPUGNED JUDGMENT:

4. On the issue of whether the applicant/respondent was a
bonafide passenger, the learned RCT delivered a finding in favour of
the applicant/respondent. With respect to Issue No. 2, which was
framed as whether the injuries were sustained in an ‘untoward
incident’, was also decided in favour of the applicant. Lastly, relying
on the disability certificate Ex.A-8 by which it was found to be a case
of bilateral amputation, Issue No.3 was also decided in favour of the
applicant/respondent. Therefore, he was held to be entitled to the
statutory amount of compensation. Learned RCT accordingly awarded
a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- in favour of the applicant/respondent
with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the petition till the date
of payment/realization.

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL:

5. The impugned judgment is assailed in the present appeal inter
alia on the grounds that the learned RCT failed to appreciate that as
per the evidence brought on the record, the applicant/respondent was
trying to board a moving train along with a Dholak when he met with
an accident, and thus, there was an act of contributory negligence on
his part and lastly, no railway ticket was recovered from him, and
therefore, the finding that that the applicant/respondent was a bonafide
passenger was also erroneous in law.
6. On filing of the present appeal, operation of the impugned
Judgment was put in abeyance vide order dated 09.05.2017. This
Court also requisitioned the digitized copy of the Lower Court
Record3, which has been made available.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

7. None appeared for the appellant when the matter was called for
final hearing. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the applicant/respondent and on perusal of the record
including the LCR, this Court proceeds to deliver the following
judgment. It has been noted that learned counsels for the parties were
given three weeks time to file written submissions, which have not
been filed by either of the parties.
8. First things first, it is well settled that the RCT is not bound by
the procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure Code and/or the Indian
Evidence Act. The Tribunal in arriving at a decision is to be guided by
the principles of natural justice. The substance of evidence led on the

3 LCR
4 (2019) 3 SCC 572

record would show that at the first possible moment in this unsavory
story, the claimant/respondent made a statement to the police, which is
reflected in DD no. 16PP dated 12.02.2015, that he had boarded the
train along with three others and was going to Meerut to sell dholaks.
It is pertinent to mention that the claimant/respondent hails from a
very impoverished background and it is improbable that being a
layman he would be in the state of mind to concoct a version of the
accident, keeping an eye on the grant of any compensation in the
future. This version was corroborated by his co-passenger Ismil in his
statement under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code to the
Investigating Officer. Although Ismil was not examined during the
inquiry before the RCT, the version of AW-1 i.e., the claimant was not
challenged in the cross-examination, to the effect that he had already
boarded the train with three others namely, Ismil, Iliyas and Talib and
fell out of the running train due to overcrowding. The plea in the
appeal that the claimant was trying to board a running train with a
dholak is by way of an afterthought. No such suggestion was given to
AW-1 in his cross-examination and his testimony read as a whole is
inspiring truthfulness. Secondly, there is no such fact deposed by
RW-1 i.e., the Guard on Train no. 54031 in his testimony either.
9. All said and done, the plea of injury being self-inflicted is
negatived by the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court
in Union of India v. Rina Devi4 , wherein it has been held as under:—

“25. We are unable to uphold the above view as the
concept of „self-inflicted injury” would require intention
to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any
particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking
the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be
done in the case of liability based on „no fault theory”.
We may in this connection refer to judgment of this Court
in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar laying
down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be
allowed in claim based on „no fault theory” under Section
163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we
hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-
boarding a train will be an „untoward incident” entitling
a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the
proviso to Section 124A merely on the plea of negligence
of the victim as a contributing factor.”5

5 124A. Compensation on account of untoward incident – When in the course of working
a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful
act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a
passenger who has been injured or the dependent of a passenger who has been killed to
maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration
shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay
compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss
occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward
incident.
Provided that no compensation shall be payable under the section by the railway
administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to –
(b) self-inflicted injury;
Explanation. – For the purpose of this section, “passenger” includes-

(i) a railway servant on duty; and
(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train
carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes
a victim of an untoward incident.

Note that clauses (a), (c), (d) and (e) of Section 124A have not been reproduced as they
are not relevant to the facts of the present case.

10. Further, the plea that the claimant/respondent was drunk at the
time of the accident is also belied from the evidence on the record. No
such case was ever propounded by the appellant. Lastly, in view of the

categorical statement of AW-1 that he had purchased a rail ticket for
himself and another, which has not been challenged in the cross-
examination either, except for a bald suggestion, the findings of the
RCT cannot be faulted which rightly observed that that in a critical
accident like the present one, there was a great probability that the
tickets might have slipped out of the shirt pocket of the victim and
was lost.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present appeal is bereft
of any merits and the same is dismissed. The interim order dated
09.05.2017 is vacated and the Registrar RCT is directed to release the
compensation amount to the claimant/respondent forthwith as per the
applicable norms. The pending application also stands disposed of.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
NOVEMBER 21, 2023
sm