'Not Bonafide Passenger': Jharkhand High Court Denies Compensation For Death Of Unlicensed Vendor Who Fell From From Moving Train

The Jharkhand High Court has refused to grant compensation to the family members of a Litti-Chatni vendor who fell from a moving train at Jasidih Station and lost his life due to overcrowding and a sudden jolt. The court stated that he was not a 'bona fide passenger' as he was boarding the train to sell Litti-Chatni without a proper license or authority issued by the Railway Administration or a valid ticket.

Justice Subhash Chand presiding over the case held, “Therefore, from the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties it is found that the husband of the claimant Ramdev Raut was not bona fide passenger, while he was boarding in the running train on 03.05.2014 for selling the Litti-Chatni as he was a vendor without any license or authority issued by Railway Administration and was also having no railway ticket on the alleged date of the incident. The said accident was caused whereby he sustained multiple injuries and died accordingly this point of determination is against the appellants/claimants.”

The above ruling came in a miscellaneous appeal directed against the award passed by the Member (Judicial) Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in a Claim Petition under section 124(A) of the Railways Act, 1989 whereby the claim petition of the appellant was dismissed.

The brief facts leading to the Miscellaneous Appeal were that the claimant, Parwati Devi had moved the claim petition before the Tribunal with the argument that on 03.05.2014 her husband Ramdev Raut (deceased) was travelling Jasidih to Jhajha by a Train having a valid second class railway ticket. It was stated that her husband boarded the train when it was stationary. As soon as the train began to move her husband accidentally fell from the running train due to the overcrowded pressure and the sudden jerk at Jasidih Station consequently died on the spot.

It was stated that the deceased on the date of the death was a 62-year-old labourer and after his death, he left his widow Parwati Devi, the claimant and two sons Chhote Lal Raut and Bade Lal Raut.

In view of the same a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- was claimed along with the Advocate fee, cost of the petition and penalty interest @ 15% per annum. Along With this claim petition, the application under section 17(2) Railway Claim Tribunal Act was also moved on behalf of claimants.

On behalf of the opposite party Union of India through the GM of the Eastern Railway, refuted the claims made in the petition. They contended that the deceased, as per the allegations, was selling Litti-Chatni on the train without a valid permit or license. It was argued that the deceased was not a legitimate passenger on the train at the time of the accident.

Referring to a memo dated 03.05.2014 issued by the Station Master at Jasidih, the counsel argued that it did not conclusively prove that the deceased fell from the moving train. Additionally, they pointed out that the inquest report attached to the claim petition did not mention the recovery of any ticket. Furthermore, it was argued that the informant, who was the deceased's son, had not witnessed the alleged incident.

The Tribunal initially granted the request to overlook the delay in filing the claim petition and concluded that the late Ramdev Raut was not a genuine passenger. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed through the impugned award.

Dissatisfied with this decision, the appellants filed a miscellaneous appeal, arguing that the impugned award disregarded the substantial evidence presented.

The Court observed that during the examination-in-chief and in her affidavit, the claimant, Parwati Devi, testified that on May 3, 2014, her husband purchased a second-class unreserved railway ticket from Jasidih to travel to Jhajha aboard the 18181 Tata-Chapra Express.

She stated that the train was excessively crowded, and her husband boarded while it was stationary. However, once the train started moving, he couldn't withstand the pressure from other passengers and fell, succumbing to fatal injuries instantly.

Following her husband's demise, Parwati Devi, aged 51, was left widowed with two sons, Chhotelal Raut, aged 32, and Badelal Raut, aged 33.

During cross-examination, Parwati Devi admitted that she did not witness the incident herself, thereby acknowledging that her testimony was based on hearsay evidence.

Taking note of the fardbeyan the Court observed, “The husband of the claimant and the father of the informant was also not having any license or permit to sell Litti-Chatni. The inquest report of the deceased is also on record Exhibit-A/1. From the very perusal of the same, it is found that the deadbody of deceased was found from Jasidih Railway Station Platform No.1 at 9:30 AM on 03.05.2014. The body was shattered. The head was also amputated. The hands and legs were also amputated. The cause of death is shown that the deceased while boarding in train Train No. 18181 UP Tata-Chapra Express fell down and died,” the Court added.

From all the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the Railway and on behalf of the claimants, the Court held that it is proved that the death of the deceased was an untoward incident which was caused while the deceased was boarding in the running train and the UD case was also registered on the written information of the son of the deceased.

The Court further held, “This written information is the admission against the claimant and the legal heirs of deceased Ramdev Raut. As such the same being the admission of the claimant's son is found admissible and same is not rebutted from the statement of claimant Parwati Devi whose statement is nothing but hearse evidence,” the Court added.

Accordingly, in view of the conclusion drawn from the aforesaid point of determination the impugned award passed by the Tribunal was upheld by the Court and the Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: Smt. Parwati Devi and Ors vs The Union of India

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 59

Click Here To Read Judgement