Is A Body Found On Railway Tracks Always That Of 'Bonafide Passenger,' And Was The Death An 'Untoward Incident'? Delhi HC Answers
The Delhi High Court held that merely, because a dead body was lying on the railway tracks, in the absence of any other independent or reliable evidence, the same cannot lead to a conclusion that the deceased died due to an “untoward incident”.
The appeal was against an order by the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) in a claim application where the RCT dismissed the claim for compensation.
The appellant was the wife of the deceased who died in an alleged untoward incident while traveling on a train. The appellant filed a claim application for compensation under Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989.
A Bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma held, “Merely, because the dead body was lying on the railway tracks, in the absence of any other independent or reliable evidence, the same cannot lead to a conclusion that the deceased died due to an ‘untoward incident”.”
Advocate N.K. Gupta appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Shoumendu Mukherji appeared for the Respondents.
The issue before the Court was whether a body found on railway tracks is necessarily a ‘bonafide passenger’ and whether the death of the deceased had occurred as a result of an untoward incident, as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
The Court noted that the Railway Claims Tribunal had dismissed the Claim Application holding that the deceased did not die in an “untoward incident” and observed that the claim application had been filed in an attempt to gain undue financial benefit in the form of compensation, in connivance with Government Railway Police/Gaya. It was further observed by the Railway Claim Tribunal that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger of Puroshottam Express as four trains had passed through the site and no one saw any dead body lying on the rail tracks soon thereafter. In fact, the Appellant failed to establish that the deceased was her husband.
The Court reviewed the RCT's reasoning and found no flaw in the decision.
It emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claims and noted discrepancies in the identification of the deceased. The Court relied on Apex Court decision of Union of India v. Rina Devi where it was held, “mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured/deceased was a bonafide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained”.
The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the RCT's decision.
Cause Title: Geeta Devi v. Union Of India & Anr., [2023:DHC:8806]
Click here to read/download Judgment
