New Delhi [India], September 4 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has dismissed a compensation claim arising from the death of a man allegedly caused by a fall from a moving train, holding that the claimant failed to establish the foundational requirement that the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the train in question.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri upheld the Railway Claims Tribunal‘s 2014 decision rejecting the claim filed by Sunaina Devi, widow of Shambhu Manjhi.
The Court noted a crucial discrepancy in the railway ticket relied upon by the claimant. While it was alleged that Manjhi was travelling from Patna Junction to New Delhi on the Brahmaputra Mail on April 17, 2011, the ticket produced in support of the claim showed that it was purchased at 5:47 pm on that day.
However, railway records showed that Train No. 4055 had already departed from Patna Junction at 1:18 pm, more than four hours before the ticket was purchased.
“This circumstance goes to the root of the appellant’s case,” the Court observed, adding that there was no satisfactory basis to conclude that the deceased had boarded the train on the strength of the ticket relied upon by the claimant.
According to the widow, there was heavy rush in the general compartment and Manjhi was standing near the gate when a sudden jerk, coupled with jostling by passengers, caused him to fall from the moving train near Sachiwalaya Halt. He was allegedly taken to Patna Medical College and Hospital (PMCH), where he succumbed to his injuries.
The claimant had argued that the journey ticket was recovered from the deceased and was referred to in the police papers. She also relied on the inquest report, FIR and the statement of the deceased’s cousin to contend that the death resulted from a fall from the train.
It was further argued that the claimant’s inability to produce an eyewitness could not defeat the claim, particularly considering the beneficial nature of the legislation governing railway accident compensation.
The Railways, however, disputed the claim and pointed to several inconsistencies in the evidence. Apart from the timing of the ticket purchase, it highlighted contradictions regarding the date of Manjhi’s death.
While the claimant stated that he was admitted to PMCH and died on April 17, 2011, a statement made by his cousin before the police recorded that he died at the hospital on April 18, 2011. The Court also noted that no admission record or death certificate from PMCH was produced to substantiate the alleged treatment and death.
Justice Ohri clarified that although mere non-recovery of a railway ticket cannot by itself determine whether an injured or deceased person was a bona fide passenger, the claimant must still establish the basic facts necessary to support such a claim.
“In the present case, the appellant relies principally upon the journey ticket said to have been recovered from the deceased,” the Court noted. However, the problem was not simply the absence or recovery of a ticket, but the fact that the ticket itself was inconsistent with the alleged journey.
The Court held that the issue was whether Manjhi had been established to be a bona fide passenger of the specific train mentioned in the claim.
“On the material available, the appellant has failed to discharge the initial burden in this regard,” the Court said.
It added that once this foundational requirement remained unproved, compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act could not be granted. Even assuming that the alleged fall otherwise qualified as an “untoward incident”, the statutory claim depended upon the deceased being a bona fide passenger.
