* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO.No.39/2008
% Reserved On: 02.12.2010
Decided On: 13.12.2010
UNION OF INDIA .... Appellant
Through: Mr.Shantanu Sagar, Advocate
VERSUS
SATYAVIR SINGH .... Respondent
Through: Mr.M.R.Sinha, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be Yes
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Yes
Digest?
: MOOL CHAND GARG,J.
*
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 23 of the
Railways Claim Tribunal Act, 1993 for setting aside the order dated
13.08.2007 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi
(hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby the learned Tribunal
has awarded a compensation of ` 3,60,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a.
from the date of the order till the date of the actual payment to the
respondent under Section 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989.
2. The facts relevant for the appraisal of this Court are that the
respondent herein filed a claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act against the appellant for payment of compensation of
an amount of ` 4,00,000/- under Section 124 A of the Railways Act for the
injuries alleged to have been sustained by him in an untoward accident
which occurred on 14.09.2004 at Sahibabad Railway Station involving the
train GDNI-EMU. The case of the respondent before the learned Tribunal
was that the respondent boarded the train GDNI-EMU from Sahibabad
Railway Station for his journey to Delhi and as the train started with a
jerk/jolt he fell down from the moving train at the Sahibabad Railway
Station itself and due to which he received multiple grievous injuries as a
result of which his right arm was badly crushed. Thereafter, he was
FAO No. 39/2008 Page 1 of 5
removed to N. M. Hospital, Ghaziabad from where he was further taken to
Military Base Hospital at Delhi Cantt. Further, during the treatment, his
right arm from the shoulder joint was amputated.
3. In support of his claim, the respondent examined himself as AW-1
and examined his friend as AW-2, who had come to the railway station to
see him off. Besides the oral evidence, he has also placed on record the
documentary evidence in the form of AW-1/1 to AW-1/5. As against this,
the Railway Administration has examined RWs 1 to 4. Out of the four
witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent, RW-1 was the Guard on
duty in Train no. GDNI-EMU, RW-2 was on duty as Assistant Station
Master at Sahibabad Railway Station and RWs 3 and 4 claim to be the
eyewitnesses to the incident. Besides the oral evidence, the respondent
has also produced the documentary evidence in the form of Ex.RW-1/1,
RW-2/1 and RW2/2. The claim petition of the respondent was contested
by the appellant herein by filing the written statement in which it was
specifically averred that the respondent was not a bona fide passenger and
the injuries received by him were on account of his own negligence and
various other grounds were also taken by the appellant.
4. The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments of both the parties and
perusing the entire material and the evidence on record, passed the
impugned order dated 13.08.2007, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded
the compensation as aforesaid.
5. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the
following issues:-
1. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger at
the time of the incident, if not what effect?
2. Whether the applicant received injuries in an
untoward incident, while travelling in a train, if so to what
effect?
3. What were the nature of injuries suffered by the
applicant?
4. To what amount of compensation, if any, is the
applicant entitled?
5. Relief.
6. Appreciating the evidence which came on record, the Tribunal
decided Issue No.1 in favour of the respondent by holding the respondent
FAO No. 39/2008 Page 2 of 5
was a bona fide passenger on the train in question inasmuch as, the
appellant has failed to adduce any evidence to show that the respondent
was not a bona fide passenger on the relevant day.
7. As regard the injuries sustained by the respondent, the respondent
had denied the suggestion in cross-examination that he was under the
influence of liquor at the time of the incident or that he wanted to commit
suicide or that in the process, he received injuries. In the cross-
examination, it was also suggested that he did not fall from the train and
that he was trying to cross the track. All these suggestions have been
clearly denied by AW-1. In view of these contrary suggestions to the
respondent, the Tribunal observed that:-
“It is pertinent to note that the respondent has made
inconsistent suggestions to AW-1 in the cross-examination.
Apart from this the case sought to be suggested to AW-1 in
the cross-examination that he was intoxicated and was
trying to commit suicide by crossing the track does not find
mention in the written statement filed by the respondent.
Thus, the suggestions made in this regard to AW-1 in the
cross-examination are contrary to the pleadings of the
respondent. It is needless to point out that the respondent
should lay a foundation in its written statement regarding
its defense. In the absence of which it would amount to a
chance defence. That apart, it appears that respondent has
not put forth a specific plea or a specific defense to escape
its liability to pay compensation. On the contrary, it
appears that it is trying to put forth all such inconsistent
and chance suggestions to escape its liability to pay
compensation. It would be of some relevance to note here
itself that though the respondent has filed written statement
on 17.7.2005, it did not accompany the DRM’s report.”
8. The Tribunal took note of Rule 13 of the Railway Passengers
(manner of investigation of untoward incidents) Rules 2003 which makes it
obligatory on the part of the Railway Administration to file investigation
report with the comments of DRM while filing the written statement in the
case, which has not been done by the appellant in this case inasmuch as,
the DRM’s report was produced by them on 10.11.2005 much after filing of
the written statement. Moreover, except placing the same on records, it
was not tendered into evidence by examining any witness in this regard.
Moreover, the Tribunal also observed that DRM’s report shows that the
same has been prepared according to their convenience after the claim was
lodged by the respondent before the Tribunal and which falsified the credit-
worthiness of the said report.
FAO No. 39/2008 Page 3 of 5
9. The Tribunal further observed that the documents which were
produced later were manipulated inasmuch as the documents were placed
on record to show that the respondent tried to cross the tack which was
not a story put forth by the appellant while filing a written statement.
10. In these circumstances, the Tribunal held that the version of the
incident as sought to be pleaded by the appellant by taking reliance upon
the statement of RW-3 and RW-4 whose evidence has been found to be
hearsay, inasmuch as, the presence of RW-3 and 4 has not been spoken to
by RW-2 cannot be believed and decided even Issue No.2 against the
appellant.
11. In these circumstances, the Tribunal further observed that since the
injuries were sustained by the appellant having fallen from a running train
due to sudden and violent jerk, the nature of incident involving a train is
covered by the definition of Section 123 (c)in the term accidental fall and
does not require any accident of any particular nature for considering such
a fall as having occurred in an untoward incident covered under Section
124 A which even otherwise needs a liberal construction taking into
consideration that the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is a social welfare
legislation. Reference has also been made by the Tribunal to the case of
Union of India Vs. B.N.Prasad, (1978) 2 SCC page 462, wherein it has been
observed :-
“……as the provision is in public interest meant to avoid
inconvenience and expense for the travelling public and gear
up the efficiency of the railway administration, it must be
construed liberally, broadly and meaningfully so as to
advance the object sought to be achieved by the Railway
Act……”
12. Referring to another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rathi
Menon Vs. UOI, 2001 ACJ 721, the Tribunal rightly observed that the
provisions of the Railways Act are not intended to give a gain to the
Railway Administration, but they are meant to afford, just and reasonable
compensation to the victims in a speedier manner.
13. In these circumstances, considering the nature of accident which
involved imputation of one of the arms of the respondent, the Tribunal
awarded a sum of ` 3,60,000/- for the injuries sustained by the
respondent in the accident along with interest @ 9% p.a.
14. Having examined the order passed by the Tribunal and after hearing
submissions from both the sides, I am satisfied that no case has been
FAO No. 39/2008 Page 4 of 5
made out by the appellant for interfering with the detailed and reasoned
award given by the Tribunal in this case. Consequently, the appeal filed by
the appellant is dismissed. Trial court record be sent back along with a
copy of this order.
CM No.1300/2008
Interim order stands vacated.
Application stands disposed of.
MOOL CHAND GARG,J
DECEMBER 13, 2010
‘dc’
FAO No. 39/2008 Page 5 of 5