FAO No. 4094 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 4094 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.1.2011 Union of India .. Appellant v. Gurmeet Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the appellant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal filed by Union of India is to the order dated 10.9.2009, passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short,`the Tribunal') in OA-II/17/2006, awarding compensation of ` 4,00,000/- to the respondent on account of the death of Bachno Bai. Briefly, the facts are that on 30.3.2005, Bachno Bai along with her husband had gone to Dera Radha Swami Beas for doing community service. Her husband came back on 15.4.2005. The deceased stayed there as she wanted to spend some more time in community service. On 25.4.2005, the deceased, being an illiterate lady, boarded 1 ALH train, which was going for Jalandhar to Amritsar. When she realised the mistake, she tried to alight from 1 ALH train and in the process slipped from the footsteps of the said train as it started moving and fell down at the dead end of the platform. She received multiple injuries and ultimately died. The claim application was filed by her husband and son before the Tribunal. In the meantime, her husband also died. Vide impugned order, son of the deceased (respondent) has been awarded ` 4,00,000/- as compensation. The appellant being aggrieved is before this court. FAO No. 4094 of 2010 [2] The only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant was that the claim petition filed by the respondent should have been rejected solely on the ground that valid ticket for travelling in the train was not found. In the absence thereof, the claim could not have been entertained. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper book. The Tribunal, while dealing with the issue, recorded following finding and held that the respondent was entitled to compensation: “The applicant's contention that ticket was lost in the incident has been denied by the respondent railways. Respondent has not set up the case that deceased was found without ticket and therefore, she was not a passenger. Case has also not been set up by respondent that deceased was travelling from Jallandhar side to go to Amritsar side and in the process she fell down and thereby the version of applicants was misleading. In fact, respondent has not placed any pleading on journey aspect. The applicant has relied upon (i) AIR 2004 Karnataka 215- claim negatived merely because of non-production of ticket- rejection of claim unjustified – (ii) Citation 2007(2) TAC 838 Bombay (Nagpur Bench) – deceased traveling on a ticket not established- burden of proving fact that deceased was not a bonafide passenger lies on railway administration – evidence on record not sufficient to hold that respondent No. 1 discharged its burden. Appeal filed by claimants held. In the instant case, the case of applicant is that ticket was purchased which was lost in the incident and there was no recovery of ticket later on the person of deceased. It was upto the respondent to prove that presence of deceased in the railway station premises or in train was illegal in the absence of ticket and this obligation was not discharged by the respondent railway administration. Therefore, plea of applicant that ticket was lost is held and the deceased was bonafide passenger. Issues No. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly in favour of the applicants. Hence, legal dependent (s) of deceased are held entitled to compensation from respondent.” FAO No. 4094 of 2010 [3] In addition to the judgments, referred to by the Tribunal, even in Gullipalli Lakshmikanthamma v. General Manager, South Central Raiway, 2003 ACJ 1582, Andhra Pradesh High Court opined that when the passenger after the accident is removed from the spot and taken to hospital and other places, there are always chances of loss of his personal belongings. It was opined that one has to imagine the circumstances that will prevail at the relevant time. The relevant para 12 thereof is extracted below: “12. After considering the same, I am of the opinion that an inference can be drawn to the effect that the deceased is a bona fide passenger having regard to the realities and realistic and pragmatic approach of the question involved. It cannot invariably be conceived or comprehended that always ticket should be traced. One has to imagine the circumstances that will prevail at the relevant time and whether keeping of the ticket should be given that much of importance at the crucial time when the deceased was suffering from fatal injuries and died; ticket could have been missing. So from the material on record it must be held that deceased is a bona fide passenger.” To the similar effect is another judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Agam Shanthamma v. Union of India, represented by General Manager, South Central Railway, 2004 ACJ 713 and Union of India v. Hari Narayan Gupta and another, AIR 2007 Rajasthan 38, wherein it was opined that burden is on the Railway Administration to lead evidence and to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. In the present case, except raising the plea that the deceased passenger was not having valid ticket, no evidence was led. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 31.1.2011 mk