Sh. Madan Mohan Gautam v. Union Of India Anr

Judgment

2. Union Of India Through General Manager, Western Rail- way, Church Gate, Mumbai. Union Of India Through General Manager, Western Central Railway Jabalpur. Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. C. Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 11/07/2025

1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant/appellant under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 assailing the award dated 16.11.2007 passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal"), in Claim Petition (O.A.) No.II/81/2001 titled as "Sh. Madan Mohan Gautam Vs. Union Of India & Anr.", whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the injured claimant/appellant.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on

08.10.2001, the claimant/appellant filed a claim petition (OA) No.II/81/2001. While stating that on 12.10.2000, he was traveling

with a second-class ticket Train No. 9024 UP Firozpur - Mumbai Janta Express, from Hindaun City to Gangapur City. He further pleaded that while waiting for the train to reach the station, he fell [2025:RJ-JP:25764] (2 of 8) [CMA-853/2008] from the train near Gangapur City Station due to a jerk and heavy rush, resulting in his right leg being crushed from the knee. The injured Madan Mohan was immediately referred to Sawai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur, where he received treatment from

13.10.2000 to 24.10.2000, and again from 14.11.2000 to

21.11.2000. He further stated that his right leg was later amputated. Although he had purchased a second-class traveling ticket, but it was subsequently lost or misplaced and could not be traced. Further due to the injuries sustained in the train accident, a claim petition was filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

3. After the service of notice, the non-claimants/respondents filed a detailed written statement on 17.04.2002. They disputed the appellant's claim of being a bona fide passenger and denied that the claimant/appellant was traveling by Train No. 9024 UP Firozpur-Mumbai Janta Express, from Hindaun City to Gangapur City. The non-claimants/respondents further contended that it was not a case of falling from Train No. 9024; rather, it was an incident where a person was crushed by a goods train. They strongly disputed the claimant/appellant's assertion of traveling with a ticket from Hindaun City to Gangapur City, submitting that the claim was false and frivolous and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Based on the pleadings of both parties, the learned Claims Tribunal framed the following four issues on 17.04.2004: [2025:RJ-JP:25764] (3 of 8) [CMA-853/2008] "(1) Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of the train in question at the time of the alleged incident? (2) Whether the applicant's case falls within the scope of an "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989? (3) What amount, if any, is the applicant entitled to receive as compensation for the injuries sustained by him? (4) Relief?"

5. In order to substantiate the claims, the claimant/appellant, Sh. Madan Mohan Gautam, filed an affidavit of himself and affidavits of Pushpendra and Rajesh on 04.03.2004. He also produced documents including the Rojanamacha Report (Ex-A.1), Discharge Ticket (13.10.2000 to 24.10.2000) (Ex-A.2), Discharge Ticket (14.11.2000 to 21.11.2000) (Ex-A.3), and a permanent disability certificate (Ex-A.4).

6. It is pertinent to mention here that only the claimant/ appellant, Sh. Madan Mohan Gautam (AW-1), was made available for cross-examination, which took place on 22.04.2004. Whereas other witness i.e. Pushpendra and Rajesh not appeared for cross examination for the reason best known to them. The non- claimants/respondents produced the report of Divisional Security Commissioner, Kota (Ex-R.1) and report of the Station House Offi- cer, Police Station, Gangapur City (Ex-R.2).

7. After consideration of the submissions so advanced by the counsels for both the parties, examination of witnesses and the exhibits so produced before it, the learned Railways Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant/ appellant vide impugned award dated 16.11.2017. [2025:RJ-JP:25764] (4 of 8) [CMA-853/2008]

8. Being aggrieved of which, the claimant/appellant filed the present appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal erred significantly in dismissing the claim petition merely because the claimant/appellant failed to prove the purchase of a valid ticket or that he fall under the definition of a bona fide passenger. He further submitted that as per the proviso to Section 124A of the Railway Act, 1989, compensation is only not payable in five specific eventualities: "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 main- tain an action and recover damages in re- spect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay com- pensation to such extent as may be pre- scribed 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 this section by the rail- way administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to - (a) suicide or attempted suicide by him; (b) self-inflicted injury; [2025:RJ-JP:25764] (5 of 8) [CMA-853/2008] (c) his own criminal act; (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; (e) any natural cause or disease or medi- cal or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to in- jury caused by the said untoward inci- dent."

10. He further submitted that the present case does not fall into any of these categories, and therefore, the appeal filed by the claimant/appellant deserves to be allowed. He further asserted that, despite the absence of a physical ticket, the injured claimant/appellant sufficiently explained in his affidavit that he had purchased the ticket, thereby proving his status as a bona fide passenger. He argued that the initial burden to prove this issue was discharged by the claimant/appellant through his affidavit, and since no counter-affidavit was filed by the respon- dent-railways, it should be presumed that there was no rebuttal. Accordingly, he prayed for the acceptance of the claim petition, relying on the judgments in Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in AIR 2018 INSC 469 and Kamukayi & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2023 INSC 541.

11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the non-claimants/ respondents opposed these submissions. He submitted that as per the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 possession of a valid ticket is mandatory to seek compensation. In the present case, the claimant failed to prove that he had ever purchased a valid ticket for Train No. 9024 UP Firozpur-Mumbai Janta Express, from Hindaun City to Gangapur City. He further submitted that the [2025:RJ-JP:25764] (6 of 8) [CMA-853/2008] injured claimant/appellant failed to prove his status as a bona fide passenger. According to the railway records (documentary evidence in Ex-R.1 or Ex-R.2), produced by the non-claimants/ respondents, this was a case of a person being crushed by a goods train. He concluded his arguments by stating that the learned Tribunal had rightly appreciated the facts and validly dismissed the claim petition.

12. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and pe- rused the impugned order as well as the record of the case

13. From a bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the claimant/appellant's claim petition was dismissed primarily because he failed to prove the purchase of a valid ticket for travel on Train No. 9024 UP Firozpur-Mumbai Janta Express, from Hindaun City to Gangapur City and because his own witnesses did not supported his version, and the facts asserted in their affidavits, were not recorded in the claim petition.

14. Upon reviewing the file, it is clear that the claimant/appellant asserted that he purchased the train ticket along with Pushpendra and Rajesh, residents of Gangapur City. These individuals also filed their respective affidavits before the Railway Claims Tribunal on 04.03.2004. However, for reasons best known to them, they did not make themselves available for cross-examination, rendering their affidavits inadmissible. Furthermore, a bare perusal of the claimant/appellant's affidavit in evidence shows that, he stated Pushpendra and Rajesh were present at the time of ticket purchase, but these alleged witnesses never appeared in the witness box to support this claim, this goes strongly against the appellant. [2025:RJ-JP:25764] (7 of 8) [CMA-853/2008]

15. Additionally, the claim petition made no mention of the ticket being purchased in the presence of Pushpendra and Rajesh. Therefore, the argument put forward by the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant that he was a traveling with a valid ticket remains highly doubtful and cannot be accepted.

16. Further, the submission by the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant, suggesting that the initial burden of proving the status of a bona fide passenger was discharged by the claimant/appellant's affidavit, and that the railway authority failed to rebut it, cannot be accepted. Further merely filing affidavit about purchasing a ticket cannot be said to sufficient discharge of the initial burden. Since, no other supporting evidence has been produced or corroborated by the claimant/appellant to dispel the cloud of suspicion.

17. Furthermore, according to the record produced by the responent-railways, specifically the report dated 24.11.2004, issued by the Divisional Security Commissioner GRP Kota (Ex- R.1), no incident of a passenger falling from Train No. 9024 UP Firozpur - Mumbai Janta Express, from Hindaun City to Gangapur City, was reported. Similarly, no such incident was reported to the Station House Officer, Police Station Gangapur City as per the report in Ex-R.2. On the contrary, a case of a leg being crushed by a goods train was reported by the goods train's guard.

18. Therefore, in this Court’s considered opinion, the learned Tribunal rightly held that the compensation cannot be awarded to claimants without a requisite valid ticket.

19. It is abundantly clear that the learned Tribunal meticulously considered all documents, including Ex-R.1 and Ex-R.2, and rightly [2025:RJ-JP:25764] (8 of 8) [CMA-853/2008] concluded that the claimant/appellant failed to prove the allegations in the claim petition, and also that the claimant/ appellant failed to prove he was a bona fide passenger who sustained injuries in an "untoward incident" as under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. Consequently, the learned Tribunal was right in dismissing the claim petition.

20. It is true that provisions for granting compensation to a bona fide passenger injured in an untoward accident while traveling by train are beneficial in nature, but such beneficial legislation cannot be interpreted as being charitable, nor can money be handed out as compensation based on mere claims without requisite pleadings and evidence of probative worth. Regarding the cases cited by the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant, namely Rina Devi (supra) and Kamukayi & Ors. (supra), there is no dispute with regard to the legal propositions laid down in those judgments. However, a bare perusal of the record in this case, aforesaid judgments are clearly distinguishable on the facts.

21. Thus, in the view of the above, this Court finds no illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the impugned order dated 16.11.2007 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal. The present appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

22. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.

23. Any pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Seema/63 (MANEESH SHARMA),J