Supreme Court - Daily OrdersSanyokta Devi vs Union Of India on 2 February, 20231\n\n                                          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                                         Civil Appeal No.770/2023\n                                (@Special Leave Petition (C) No.31172/2017)\n\n     SANYOKTA DEVI                                                                      Appellant(s)\n\n                                                               VERSUS\n\n     UNION OF INDIA                                                                     Respondent(s)\n                                                           O R D E R1.                  Leave granted.2.                  The appellant’s claim for award of compensation underSection\n\n     16of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 was turned down by the\n\n     Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna bench (in short: the Tribunal) vide\n\n     an               order     dated     15­10­2012.          Her   miscellaneous       appeal     against\n\n     rejection                 of   the    claim         was   dismissed    by    the    High     Court   of\n\n     Judicature at Patna vide impugned Judgment dated 21­06­2016. The\n\n     appellant is now before this Court.3.                  The   husband    of       the     appellant,      late   Vijay    Singh      (“the\n\n     deceased”)                 purchased      a    valid      railway   ticket    on    21­03­2002       and\n\n     boarded the Bhagalpur – Danapur Inter­city Express at Bakhtiyarpur\n\n     to go to Patna.4.                  The case of the appellant was that the deceased accidentally\n\n     fell down from the running train at the originating station itself,\n\n     due to heavy rush inside the compartment. It appears that the\n\n     deceased was crushed under the train and died instantly. One of the\nSignature Not Verified\n\nDigitally signed by\nVISHAL ANAND\n\n     sons of the appellant, namely, Dilip Kumar is reported to have\nDate: 2023.02.09\n10:50:58 IST\nReason:stated before the Police Officers of the Government Railway Police\n\n     Station, Bakhtiyarpur on 21­03­2002 at 16:15 hours that at around22.00­2.30    pm,    he   was     informed       telephonically        about   his   father\n\nhaving died in a rail accident. He reached at the spot of accident\n\nat around 4.15 pm and identified the dead body of his father and is\n\nalleged to have stated that “due to mental sickness from the last\n\n10 years, he used to roam here and there”. He is further stated to\n\nhave reported to the Police that his father had died after falling\n\nfrom the train, as per witnesses and nobody was at fault. An F.I.R.\n\nwas lodged on the basis of the said report.5.   The    appellant       in   her    claim     petition,     filed   on    29­08­2002,\n\nspecifically averred that her husband was “mentally and physically\n\nhealthy and a fit person” and that her son Dilip Kumar never stated\n\nbefore the Police that his father had lost his mental balance. In\n\nsupport of her claim petition, the appellant filed an affidavit;\n\nappeared as a witness and was subjected to cross­examination. She\n\nspecifically       denied    the       allegation        that   her   husband’s     mental\n\ncondition was not good.6.   It was further averred that her son Dilip Kumar had given a\n\nstatement on 21­03­2002 but the Police Officer of GRPS took his\n\nsignatures, distorted the facts and wrongly mentioned his statement\n\nwith regard to the mental health of her deceased husband. Dilip\n\nKumar, son of the appellant also filed an affidavit before the\n\nRailway     Claims       Tribunal        on       24­07­2012      stating      that    the\n\nInvestigating      Officer       had    taken      his    signatures    and    later   on,\n\nmisrepresented the facts and wrongly mentioned that his father was\n\nof unsound mind and used to wander here and there aimlessly. He3further     averred   that     the    Final          Report     of    the    Police     was    also\n\nfactually incorrect.7.     It may also be noticed that in her affidavit filed in support\n\nof    the   Claim   Petition,        the    appellant           in   para     10   specifically\n\ndisclosed that besides her the deceased was survived by two sons\n\nnamely, Dilip Kumar, aged 42 years, and Samir Kumar, aged 40 years,\n\nwho    were   not   dependent    on        him       and   hence,      she    being     the    lone\n\ndependent of the deceased had filed the Claim Petition.8.     The Tribunal rejected the appellant’s Claim Petition holding\n\nthat    neither     the   appellant        nor       her    son      were    to    be   believed.\n\nAccording to the Tribunal, Dilip Kumar, son of the appellant was\n\nnot aware of his father’s journey to Patna at the time when his\n\nstatement was recorded on 21­03­2002 and that what was meticulously\n\naverred by the appellant in her Claim Petition also indicated that\n\nher version was an after­thought in order to receive the benefit of\n\ncompensation and she misrepresented the facts before the Tribunal.9.     The High Court turned down the appellant’s challenge to the\n\nTribunal’s Order observing as follows:­\n\n      “6. Claim petition had alone been filed by Sanyukta Devi,\n      wife without disclosing that how many siblings she had from\n      her husband and further, petition was filed on behalf of\n      all the siblings. Although presence of Dilip was there in\n      the recital of the petition but the reasons best known to\n      the claimant, she had not opted to allow him to stood over\n      petition as a party. The aforesaid event was purposely made\n      in    the   background    of     presence            of   mental       condition    of\n      deceased having disclosed at the end of Dilip. That happens4to    be    reason   behind     that    even     during   trial,       a   strange\n      methodology was adopted by the claimant wherein withholding\n      physical       presence         of     Dilip      for     the        purpose      of\n      cross­examination, filed his evidence on an affidavit & on\n      account thereof, that had lost its legal identity.7. From the petition, it is apparent that claimant was well\n      aware of the averments whatever been at the end of her son\n      Dilip regarding mental condition of the deceased, which,\n      neither been properly explained nor denied at the end of\n      the    claimant.      However,       during     course     of    trial,      while\n      examining herself to be as AW­l she stated under para­9 of\n      the affidavit that signature of Dilip was obtained by the\n      police official on blank paper and then the narration was\n      scribed in distorted way wherein purposely, intentionally\n      and malafidely the mental condition of the deceased has\n      been introduced by the police official that of unsound\n      mind, which neither found in the petition nor has been\n      substantiated        by   any    cogent       evidence    that       any   sort   of\n      grudge was persisting which, provoked the police official\n      to indulge in such kind of illegal activities. Furthermore,\n      it    was    Dilip   who    was      competent     enough       to    depose,     as\n      fardbeyan was not recorded in the presence of claimant.”10.   We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned\n\nAdditional Solicitor General on behalf of the respondent(s).11.   With a view to ascertain the correctness of the rival pleas\n\nraised by the parties, original record of the Tribunal has been\n\nrequisitioned and perused.12.   What emerges is the fact that the appellant’s claim was not\n\naccepted by both the Tribunal and the High Court solely on the\n\nground that the deceased was of unsound mind and he was knocked5down by an unidentified train.13.   According to the Tribunal, had the deceased fallen from a\n\ncrowded train in the morning hours, the co­passengers would have\n\ndefinitely known and taken pro­active action, either by stopping\n\nthe train or by informing the Railway Authorities at the next\n\nstation.14.   In   our   considered    opinion,     the   reasons        assigned   by   the\n\nTribunal and the High Court are completely absurd, imaginary and\n\ncontrary to the undisputed facts on record.15.   There is no denial on behalf of the respondent(s) that the\n\ndeceased    purchased   a     valid   railway     ticket    to     travel   on   the\n\nBhagalpur – Danapur Inter­city Express from Bakhtiyarpur to go to\n\nPatna.16.   He boarded the train and was travelling alone. Had he been of\n\nunsound mind, it would have been nearly impossible for him to\n\npurchase a ticket of a particular destination and board the train\n\nall by himself. These facts completely belie the allegations that\n\nthe deceased was of unsound mind.17.   The fact that the deceased fell down from the train and thus\n\ndied in a railway accident is not in dispute. How and in what\n\nmanner the accident took place cannot be expected to be explained\n\nby the appellant as she was not accompanying her husband. In this\n\nregard, the son of the appellant – Dilip Kumar was equally helpless\n\nas he too was admittedly not present at the time and place of the\n\naccident.618.    The Appellant’s claim on account of an admitted death of her\n\nhusband in a railway accident cannot be made dependent on the fact\n\nthat co­passengers of the appellant’s husband made no attempt to\n\nstop    the    train     or    report       the       matter     to   the     Railway   Police\n\nAuthorities. Such an eventuality might not have arisen as soon\n\nafter the accident took place at the originating station itself,\n\nthe family was informed telephonically and within next two hours,\n\nformal First Information Report was lodged by the Railway Police at\n\nBakhtiyarpur Junction.19.    There   is   no   oral       or   documentary           evidence     to   indicate   the\n\nmental fitness of the deceased, except the statement alleged to\n\nhave been made by his own son Dilip Kumar pursuant to which First\n\nInformation Report was registered. The alleged statement cannot be\n\nheld to be a conclusive proof of the mental health condition of the\n\ndeceased, firstly, for the reason that Dilip Kumar subsequently on\n\naffidavit      disowned       any    such     statement;          secondly,      neither    the\n\nrespondent(s) examined any co­villager nor produced any medical\n\nproof to substantiate their defence. In fact, no such specific plea\n\nhas been taken by the respondent(s), except a question being put to\n\nthe    appellant       in     her        cross­examination            where      she    stoutly\n\ncontroverted the said allegation and asserted that her husband was\n\nmentally fit.20.    The Tribunal and the High Court have overlooked the fact that\n\nthe appellant successfully discharged the initial onus on her by\n\nproving that the deceased had bought a valid railway ticket and7boarded the train to reach the specified destination. It was a\n\ncompensatory     claim,     originating        out    of    a     social    welfare\n\nlegislation, and such claim ought to have been examined on the\n\nbasis of preponderance of probabilities and not on the parameters\n\nof “beyond any reasonable doubt” as we often apply in a criminal\n\ntrial.21.   We are thus of the view that the Tribunal and High Court have\n\nunreasonably turned down a fair and just claim of the appellant.22.   Consequently and for the reasons afore­stated, the Appeal is\n\nallowed   and   the   impugned   order       dated   15­10­2012    passed   by   the\n\nRailway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench and                impugned Judgment and\n\nOrder dated 21­06­2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at\n\nPatna are, hereby, set aside. The Claim Petition of the Appellant\n\nis    allowed   and   she   is   held    entitled      to   a   compensation     of\n\nRs.4,00,000/­ (as was admissible at the relevant time) along with\n\ninterest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the Claim Petition\n\ntill its actual realization. The amount of compensation shall be\n\npaid to the appellant within two months.…………………………………………J\n                                                                     (SURYA KANT)\n\n\n\n\n                                                                …………………………………………J\n                                                                (J.K. MAHESHWARI)\nNEW DELHI\n2ND FEBRUARY, 2023.8ITEM NO.19                 COURT NO.9               SECTION XVI\n\n                 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F     I N D I A\n                         RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSSpecial Leave Petition (Civil) No.31172/2017\n\n(Arising   out  of   impugned final judgment and order dated\n21­06­2016 in MA No. 176/2013 passed by the High Court of\nJudicature at Patna)\n\nSANYOKTA DEVI                                        Appellant(s)\n                                 VERSUS\nUNION OF INDIA                                       Respondent(s)\n\n(IA   No.  32800/2021   ­   APPROPRIATE   ORDERS/DIRECTIONS,IA No.\n32797/2021 ­ EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. &      IA No. 32796/2021 ­\nPERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)\n\nDate : 02­02­2023 This matter was called on for hearing today.\n\nCORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT\n          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI\n\nFor Appellant(s)\n                     Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Adv.Ms. Fauzia Shakil, AOR\n                     Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Adv.Mr. Agastya Sen, Adv.For Respondent(s)\n                    Mr. Jayant Kumar Sud, A.S.G.Mr. Rajan Kr. Chourasia, Adv.Mr. Kartik Jasra, Adv.Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR\n                    Mr. Nawanjai Mahapatra, Adv.Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv.Mr. S. Subramanian, Adv.Ms. Ishita Farsaiya, Adv.Mr. Tejas Patel, Adv.Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam, Adv.Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv.Mr. Navanjay Mahpatra, Adv.UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following\n                            O R D E R\n    Leave granted.The appeal is allowed, in terms of the signed Order.9Pending applications also stand disposed of.(VISHAL ANAND)                                  (PREETHI T.C.)\nASTT. REGISTRAR­cum­PS                           COURT MASTER (NSH)\n                (Signed Order is placed on the file)