RUKMANI vs UNION OF INDIA

FAO  503/17 17/11/23[ DELHI HIGH COURT ]

[HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA ]

 

 

Railways Act Sections 123 (c)(2) and 124A – Railways Claims Tribunal Act Section 27 Untoward incident Claim for compensation – Mere fact that rail ticket was not recovered from the dead body is hardly of any consequence as deposition of AW-2 is manifestly truthful, ticket was purchased and deceased travelled in the general compartment – Rail ticket might have fallen out of the pockets probably on account of the impact of jerks due to the momentum of the body on its fall on the rail tracks – Dead body was found at a place where the deceased could not have otherwise been, unless he was travelling in the train – Impugned order set aside – Appeal allowed – Appellant is awarded a compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the incident.

FINAL DECISION
14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court finds that the appellant /claimant has been succeeded in proving by preponderance of probabilities that her deceased husband was a bonafide passenger
travelling in general compartment of Lichhavi Express within the ambit of Section 2 (29) of The Act2 and that he met with an „untoward incident‟ as defined under section 2 (n) read with clause (c) of Section
123 of The Act

3. Mere fact that the rail ticket was not recovered from
the dead body is hardly of any consequence as deposition of AW-2 is manifestly truthful, that the ticket was purchased and the deceased travelled in the general compartment. It is probable that the rail ticket might have fallen out of the pockets probably on account of the impact of jerks due to the momentum of the body on its fall on the rail tracks. Reference can be invited to the decision in Union of India vs Rina Devi4 , wherein it was reiterated that if a dead body is found in the precincts of the Railway Station, there is a presumption that thedeceased was a „bonafide passenger‟. In the instant case, the dead body was found at a place where the deceased could not have otherwise been, unless he was travelling in the train.

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order dated 29.05.2017 passed by the learned RCT cannot be sustained in law for being perverse, based on erroneous appreciation of evidence on the record and suffering from patent illegality. The same is set aside and the appeal is accordingly allowed and the appellant is awarded a compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the incident i.e., 19.10.2016 till this date.

To read the Judgment click here 

RUKMANI versus UNION OF INDIA judgment The Law Literates

All rights reserved (Adv Vaibhav Tomar)