NEW DELHI: Delhi High Court Reject the appeal under Section 23 of Railway Act, 1989, by the deceased son who was died on railway accident in 2011, the matter was Appeared before the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharmesh Sharma. Claimant’s Father Mr. Late Nishant Sharma who was travelling from Brijwasan to Taj Nagar by the train 2MNR on Nov 1st, 2011 by having valid ticket number 05887, the deceased was standing the near the gate and when train reached Taj Nagar he fell down from the train and crushed by the another train coming from towards him. The matter goes under the Railway Claim Tribunal (RCT) 1987, furthermore the Claimant contended that the The Deceased was bonafide Passenger under section 2(29 of the Railway Act, 1989: which defines the “passenger” as someone with the valid ticket/pass. And the other contention from the petitioner before the RCT was the Deceased the was an “untoward incident” which also define under the Section 123(C) of the Railway Act, 1989: which define as the “untoward incident” for the compensation and the demand for the compensation was 4,00,000/ under Section 123(c) of Railways Act, 1989.
Railway Claim Tribunal (RCT) on his judgment declined the Contention of the Petitioner because of the lack of evidence which claim the Deceased was the fall under Section 2(29) of Railways Act, due to the place where RPF found his body has collect his Mobile phone and Rs.121/, there was no ticket of the Deceased hence he’s no Bonafide passenger. On the other hand RCT Emphasised the Statement of the Loco pilot which untoward him which he says that Deceased coming towards the train despite the honking multiple times.
Furthermore, plaintiff Appeal before the High Court of Delhi which comes under the Jurisdiction of RCT, under Section of 23 of RCT act, 1987 which says that if you’re not satisfied by the Tribunal Decision it give you the right Appeal before the High Court within 90 Days of the RCT order.
High court dismissed the Appeal of the petitioner and upholding the Railways Claim Tribunal decision, on the 2008 judgment of Union Of India V. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors. Whic exphasises to decline the claim of the petitioner for the lack of supporting evident and the Evidence which are the following grounds says are as follows:
I. H.C says the Deceased not cover under the section 2(29) of Railways Act: on the ground of No ticket recover from him and his Co-passsenger Mr. Shailesh Chaubey testimony was found Inconsistencies and lack of no evidence.
II. H.C also rejected the Contention of “untoward incident” under section 123(C) of Railways Act, by saying that Deceased accindent was by walking on the Track testimony by Loco pilot and GRP/GRM, and no evidence found for falling from a train.
CONCLUSION : The appeal was dismissed, affirming the RCT’s decision which later court found insufficient evidence to establish the Deceased as a Bonafide passenger and support the claim for compensation.
JUDGMENT NAME:- SURESH KUMAR SHARMA &ANR V. UNION OF INDIA THR G.M
NAME- ALI ASGHAR, COLLAGE- JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA, YEAR- 2ND YEAR
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
