FAO No.213/2009 Page 1 of 7 * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI FAO. No213/2009. % Judgment reserved on: 16th July, 2009 Judgment delivered on: 22nd July, 2009 Sh. Sohan Lal S/o. Late Sh. Narayan R/o. H. No. H-53, Aruna Nagar, Civil Lines, Delhi ….Appellant. Through: Mr. N.K. Gupta, Adv. Versus Union of India Through General Manager Northern Railways, Baroda House, New Delhi ….Respondent. Through: Mr. Neeraj Atri with Mr. Vineeta Atri, Advs. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes FAO No.213/2009 Page 2 of 7 V.B.Gupta, J. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging judgment dated 2nd April, 2009 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, (for short as „Tribunal‟), Delhi, vide which claim petition of appellant was dismissed. 2. Case of appellant is that on 23rd October, 2007, he was travelling in Pooja Express from Dausa Railway Station, Rajasthan to Delhi. As soon as the train reached at Dausa Railway Station and Bandikui Railway Station, suddenly four persons entered in the coach where appellant was standing and they snatched Rs.1,260/- and a wrist watch. Appellant opposed the snatching but was brutely beaten and he received multiple injuries. Appellant pulled the chain and GRP police came on the spot and caught the offenders. Ticket of appellant was taken into custody by GRPF police and appellant reached Delhi later on and was treated in Hospitals. FAO No.213/2009 Page 3 of 7 3. Respondent contested the claim petition and denied the allegations made by appellant. It is stated that alleged accident is not covered under Sections 123, 124 and 124-A of the Railways Act and as such appellant is not entitled to any compensation. It is further stated that appellant was not holding any valid pass or ticket issued by railway and as such he was not a passenger. The whole story about extraction of money is false and concocted. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for appellant that appellant was having a valid ticket which was taken into custody by GRPF Railway Officer and as such he was bona fide passenger. It is further contended that appellant was beaten by four persons in train and police has registered an FIR, on the complaint of appellant against the offenders and respondent did not rebut these facts by way of evidence, as such impugned order is liable to be set aside. FAO No.213/2009 Page 4 of 7 5. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for respondent that appellant was not a bona fide passenger and was not holding any valid ticket. Moreover, medical evidence with regard to injuries sustained by appellant, in the train had not been placed on record. 6. The onus of the issue as to whether appellant was a bona fide passenger or not, rest upon him. It was for appellant to show that he had valid ticket, while he was travelling in train. 7. As per findings of the Tribunal, appellant did not produce any railway ticket to show that he was a bona fide passenger. In this regard, relevant portion of impugned judgment reads as under; “In the instant case, neither the applicant has stated either in his affidavit or in his evidence made before the Tribunal that he had purchased a valid ticket for his travel in the concerned train, nor he has produced the railway ticket to show that he was travelling as a bona fide passenger on the train at the relevant time of the incident. Also, there is nothing on record to show that the applicant had purchased a general ticket, FAO No.213/2009 Page 5 of 7 which has been taken by the GRPF staff, as alleged in the claim application. There is absolutely no evidence on behalf of the applicant to show that he had purchased a valid ticket for his journey by the concerned train and that the same had been taken by GRPF staff. On the other hand, he has clearly admitted in his cross- examination that he came to Delhi without ticket, as he was escorted by the police. That means the injured applicant did not possess any valid ticket for his travel by the concerned train to Delhi. The respondent railway administration has clearly denied in its written statement that the applicant was a bona fide passenger. In fact, the applicant himself has not stated in his claim application that he had purchased any such valid ticket for his travel by the concerned train.” 8. Next question to be seen is, as to whether appellant was a passenger in terms of Section 124 of Railway Act or not. On this issue, Tribunal held; “Section 124-A of the Act on more places than one has used the expression “passenger” who is entitled to recover damages in the event of personal injury in an untoward incident and the word “passenger” has been defined under the Act. Section 124-A does not entitle a trespasser or an unauthorized person to get the benefit of the said provision. It is needless to point out that being a passenger within the meaning of the Act, FAO No.213/2009 Page 6 of 7 the applicant must be a person travelling with a ticket, pass or permission of the railway authority. In the instant case, as I have already noticed, the material placed on record is neither sufficient nor satisfactory to show that the applicant was a bona fide passenger within the meaning of the Act. The railway administration is not liable to pay compensation for the injuries to a person, who was travelling by a train without a valid ticket. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case I am constrained to hold that the applicant was not a bona fide passenger within the meaning of Section 124-A of the Railways Act.” 9. Lastly, with regard to the injuries sustained by the appellant in train, it is clear from the evidence of appellant himself, that injuries sustained by him were on account of a quarrel between him and other persons over issue of accommodation (seat) in the train, which could hardly be said to be an untoward incident within meaning of Section 123 read with Section 124-A of the Railway Act. 10. Moreover, as per findings of the Tribunal, medical record produced by appellant does not show, that he FAO No.213/2009 Page 7 of 7 was taken for treatment in hospitals, with history of any violence committed on him. 11. Under these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity or ambiguity in the impugned judgment. The present appeal is not maintainable and same is hereby dismissed. 10. Parties shall bear their own costs. July 22, 2009 V.B.GUPTA, J. rb