Delhi High Court granted compensation and set aside the order of the railway tribunal.
Title: RAM PRATAP & ANR vs UNION OF INDIA (MINISTRY OF RAILWAY)
Reserved on: 15.03.2023
Pronounced on: 05.07.2023
FAO 172/2014
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Introduction
Delhi High court set aside the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi in OA(IIu)008/2013 and granted compensation to the appellants under section 23 of the railway claims tribunal act 1987.
Facts of the case
The appellants seek to challenge the decision made by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi in OA(IIu)008/2013, which dismissed the claim application they submitted. This appeal was filed in accordance with Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
The appellants’ knowledgeable counsel argued that the Tribunal had rejected the appellants’ claim even though the two travel tickets (for the forward and return voyage) had been found on the deceased individual.
In contrast, the respondent’s learned CGSC argued that the Tribunal correctly rejected the assertions that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that the event an untoward incident occurred while defending the disputed order.
Analysis of the court
A review of the file would also demonstrate that the tickets were confirmed and discovered to have been issued on June 5, 2012, at 12:18. Even though the trip was started on that day with considerable delay, The appellants claimed in their testimony that after buying the tickets, the deceased went home for some personal matters before returning to travel later that evening. In the deceased should not be denied the status of having been a genuine passenger just because there was a small window of time between the time the tickets were issued and the journey was actually taken, according to this Court’s FAO 172/2014 Page 3 of 4 opinion. In addition, the Tribunal’s assertion that the claim averments are implausible since neither the deceased’s fellow passengers nor the authorities were informed of the occurrence is false and should be rejected given the circumstances of the case.
In light of the foregoing reasoning, this Court believes that the Tribunal erred in denying the appellants’ claim application. As a result, the appeal is granted and the contested ruling is reversed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta