Rohinton Fali Nariman JUDGMENT
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against award of compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs Under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (1989 Act).
2. The Respondent filed claim for compensation for death of her husband Jatan Gope in an 'untoward incident' on 20th August, 2002. Her case is that the deceased had purchased a ticket of second class for Karauta to Khusrupur by train No. 532. He fell down from the train due to rush of passengers and died on the spot. One Kailash Gope who witnessed the deceased purchasing the ticket and boarding the train filed an affidavit stating these facts. He was not cross-examined. Case of the Respondent is that the ticket was not recovered from possession of the deceased as it may have been lost somewhere.
3. The claim was contested by the Appellant. It was stated that the deceased was not a passenger but was wandering near the railway track. Cousin of the deceased who lodged FIR stated the deceased was suffering from mental disorder and was wandering in that state of mind. However, he was not examined as a witness.
4. The Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that it was not a case of 'untoward incident' but a case of 'run over'. The deceased was not a bona fide passenger.
5. The High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal by relying upon the evidence of Kailash Gope who filed affidavit to the effect that the deceased had purchased the ticket and had boarded the train. The said witness has not been cross-examined. Reliance was placed on a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in Kaushalaya Devi v. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, U.P. MANU/BH/1318/2008 : PLJR 2008 (3), page 711 to the effect that if a dead body is found in the precincts of the Railway Station, there is a presumption that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Onus to prove that he was a ticketless traveller was on the Railway. Judgment of this Court in Kamrunnissa v. Union of India MANU/SC/0540/2017 : AIR 2017 SC 1436 to the effect that the 'run over' was different from 'untoward incident' was distinguished. Therein, there was no evidence about the deceased purchasing the ticket as in the present case.
6. This appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the claim of the Respondent was not admissible in absence of an 'untoward incident' as defined Under Section 123(c) of the 1989 Act as rightly held by the Tribunal. Mere presence of body in the precincts of the Railway was not enough to presume that he was a bona fide purchaser particularly when no ticket was found from the deceased.
7. Learned ASG made it clear that the Appellant was interested only in laying down of law on the subject even if the impugned judgment was not disturbed. Accordingly, we requested Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior Counsel to assist the court as Amicus, instead of issuing notice to the Respondent. We do not propose to disturb the impugned judgment irrespective of its correctness and we propose to consider the legal issue sought to be raised and the iss........