FAO No. 2054 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 2054 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.4.2011 Union of India .. Appellant v. Risal Singh and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Advocate for the appellant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal filed by Union of India is to the order dated 27.1.2009, passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short,`the Tribunal') in OA- II/120/2005, awarding compensation of ` 4,00,000/- to the respondents on account of the death of Som Parkash. Briefly, the facts are that on 5.9.2004, Som Parkash was travelling on 1 DPM train from Sonepat to Ganaur. When the train reached at Rajlu Garhi Railway Station, some more passengers boarded and it was over-loaded. Som Parkash was standing in the corridor of the train near the entrance. When the train covered a distance of about one kilometer from Rajlu Garhi Railway Station, he fell down from the running train due to push and died at the spot. Vide impugned order, parents of the deceased have been awarded ` 4,00,000/- as compensation. The appellant being aggrieved is before this court. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant was that the claim petition filed by the respondents 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 FAO No. 2054 of 2010 [2] 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 respondents were entitled to compensation: “It is true that no journey ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased during the course of his jamatalashi, but as against the testimony of AW-2 Rohtash wherein he has stated that the deceased was standing in the queue for purchasing a ticket and he had purchased the journey ticket in his presence which was a computerized paper ticket, the respondent has not adduced any evidence to the effect that no such ticket,as alleged, was ever issued from the railway station Sonepat for Ganaur on the date of incident. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary from the side of the respondent-railway, the veracity of AW-2 cannot be doubted and has to be taken as correct. Further, it has come in evidence on record that the deceased was alive when noticed as lying on the railway track and he was transported to CHC, Ganaur in a three wheeler for treatment. Therefore, the possibility of loss of ticket some where during the course of incident itself or during the course of transportation of deceased's (alive at that time) body to the hospital for treatment cannot be ruled out. I am fortified in my views by the law laid down by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court at Bangalore in 2004 ACJ 1761 “Leelavathamma vs. Union of India represented by General Manager, Southern Railway” wherein in the similar circumstances where the body of the deceased was transported to nearby station and was subjected to post-mortem, it was observed that loss of ticket can be explained and understood as the body was handled by different agencies. In 2003 ACJ 1582 “Gullipalli Lakshmikanthamma vs. General Manager, South Central Railway”, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at FAO No. 2054 of 2010 [3] Hyderabad while dealing with an appeal against the judgment of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderbad Bench dismissing the claim of the claimant therein for death in an untoward incident, has observed in para 12 of its judgment that “I am of the opinion that an inference can be drawn to the effect that the deceased is a bonafide passenger having regard to the realities and realistic and pragmatic approach on 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 bonafide passenger.” In addition to the judgments, referred to by the Tribunal, to the similar effect are the judgments of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Agam Shanthamma v. Union of India, represented by General Manager, South Central Railway, 2004 ACJ 713 and Rajasthan High Court in 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 applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal are also dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 18.4.2011/mk FAO No. 2054 of 2010 [4] mk