Mohd Shafi v. The Union of India

Patna High Court MA No.311 of 2012 (9) dt.12-08-2013 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and being satisfied by the reasons assigned, the delay is condoned. I.A. No. 29 of 2013 is allowed. Reg: M.A. No. 311 of 2012 This appeal under Section 23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.02.2011 passed by the Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in Claim Case No. OA 00031 of 2001, whereby the tribunal has rejected the claim case on grounds that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Facts of the matter in brief is that the mother of the appellant Jahanara who was a class-IV employee with the Department of Communication, Government of India and posted at Patna boarded the train no. 541 Up Rajgir-Patna after purchasing a valid ticket on 22.06.2000. It is the case of the appellant that since there was a heavy rush of the passengers she got pushed and having lost control over herself, the mother of the appellant fell down from the running train and suffered severe head injuries and as a consequence whereof she died on the spot. Setting up a case of untoward accident as defined under Section 123(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, the claim case was instituted on

01.02.2001 giving rise to Case No. O.A. No. 00031 of 2001. Patna High Court MA No.311 of 2012 (9) dt.12-08-2013 3 Upon notice being issued the claim of the appellant was contested by the respondent-Railway on grounds that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the case did not fall within the parameters of Section 124A of the Act. Whereas besides oral evidence, 11 documentary evidence was led by the claimant- appellant in support of his claim which fact finds mention in the judgment and order impugned, no evidence was led by the Railway to contest the same. The tribunal considering the claim set forth, in the light of the documentary evidence led by the appellant, namely, the memo of the Station Master reporting the accident, the F.I.R., the final report, the inquest report, the death certificate and the postmortem report etc., accepted the plea of the appellant that the death of the mother was an untoward incident having fallen from the train but the claim was rejected by the tribunal on grounds that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.

The reasons assigned is that there is a discrepancy in the number of the ticket as produced by the appellant and led as Exhibit-A/9 and the number which was found in the claim application. Whereas the number of the ticket led as Ext. A/9 read as 7160 T, the number referred to in the claim case read as 71607. Thus finding a discrepancy in the last digit of the ticket number, the claim case was rejected by the tribunal on grounds that the Patna High Court MA No.311 of 2012 (9) dt.12-08-2013 4 deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The reason assigned by the tribunal to reject the claim is shockingly ridiculous. The claim case of the appellant could not have been rejected on this ground since it was neither the case of the Railway that the ticket was a forged document nor is their case that the ticket in question did not belong to the deceased or that it was procured subsequently. It has been argued on behalf of the Railway that even when the appellant had led the ticket as Exhibit-9 to the claim case, they did not bother to correct the number in the claim case.

The said argument can hardly justify the rejection of the claim on this account and more so when the genuineness of the ticket was never put to question. It is rather surprising that even when the tribunal has given a conclusive finding as regarding the death of the mother of the claimant in the untoward accident, it has yet chosen to reject the claim on a hyper technicality of typographical error occurring in the claim case even when the ticket itself was led by way of evidence. Section 124A of the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and until such time that the case of the claimant can be brought within the purview of the proviso attached to the provision it has to be accepted with a liberal attitude. Reference in this regard is made to the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527 Patna High Court MA No.311 of 2012 (9) dt.12-08-2013 5 and (2010) 12 SCC 443. Even when it is not the case of the Railway that the case of the appellant fell within either of the clauses of the proviso, the tribunal has tried to find fault in the typographical error occurring in the claim case in respect of the ticket number.

The finding of the tribunal is apparently perverse and cannot be upheld. For the reasons aforesaid the judgment and order impugned is set aside. The claim case is allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to the claim amount together with interest quantified at 6 per cent per annum payable with effect from the date of filing of the case until the date of the payment. Let the lower court records be sent back to the court concerned forthwith. This appeal is allowed. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J)