Skip to content


Dulari Devi Vs. Claims Commissioner, N. Rlys. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1(1985)ACC383
AppellantDulari Devi
RespondentClaims Commissioner, N. Rlys.
Cases ReferredSmt. Sundari Devi v. Union of India
Excerpt:
- - we have also examined the evidence and we are satisfied that the evidence does not establish that these three persons were passengers in the ill-fated train. consequently, the adhoc claims commissioner was perfectly justified in dismissing the claim. 5. having examined the record of the case, we are satisfied that the appeal has no merits. whatsoever and it must also fail for the above reasons......on the issue whether deceased renui, vedi and sampatiya were bonafide passengers in the ill-fated train, the learned adhoc claims commissoner has held that the deceased renui, vedi and sampatiya were not proved to have been travelling by the ill-fated train and they were not bonafide passengers. three other issues namely issue nos. 2, 4 and 5 related to finding out whether claimants were dependents of the deceased the adhoc claims commissioner held that since the alleged deceased were not- found to have died in the accident in question, smt. dulari, chhedi or km munki were not the dependents of any of the alleged deceased. by the aforesaid judgment dated 22nd january 1976, the adhoc claims commissioner dismissed the claims.3. the principal question in this appeal would be whether.....
Judgment:

A. Banerjee, J.

1. This first appeal from order has been filed against the judgment dated 22nd January 1976 passed by the Adhoc Claims Commissioner, Northern Railway, Allahabad rejecting the claim made by the present appellant.

2. On the issue whether deceased Renui, Vedi and Sampatiya were bonafide passengers in the ill-fated train, the learned Adhoc Claims Commissoner has held that the deceased Renui, Vedi and Sampatiya were not proved to have been travelling by the ill-fated train and they were not bonafide passengers. Three other issues namely issue Nos. 2, 4 and 5 related to finding out whether claimants were dependents of the deceased The Adhoc Claims Commissioner held that since the alleged deceased were not- found to have died in the accident in question, Smt. Dulari, Chhedi or Km Munki were not the dependents of any of the alleged deceased. By the aforesaid judgment dated 22nd January 1976, the Adhoc Claims Commissioner dismissed the Claims.

3. The principal question in this appeal would be whether Renui, Vedi and Sampatiya were passengers of the ill-fated train and perished in the accident which took place near Mancharganj Railway station of Allahabad Division on 31st October 1974. The Adhoc Claims Commisioner referred to the evidence on record and concluded that it was not proved that the deceased were passengers in the ill-fated train. We have also examined the evidence and we are satisfied that the evidence does not establish that these three persons were passengers in the ill-fated train. There is no evidence at all to hold that the three persons in question were in the aforesaid train or that died in the accident or that they were identified amongst the dead. There is also no evidence to establish that these three persons ever purchased any ticket from Tundla Railway Station. The evidence, on the other hand points out that no ticket from Tundla to Varanasi was issued on 30th October 1974 upto 8 A.M. nor any ticket for Varanasi was issued upto 8 A.M. on 31-10-1974. Evidence was also led to show that no out-agency or private booking agency at Tundla had sold such ticket. The allegation was that these three persons boarded the Train at Tundla Railway Station. If that was so, some evidence of their having purchased the ticket at the Tundla Railway Station ought to have been forthcoming. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that if the persons were burnt or charred then in all possibility the tickets with them also must have been perished. This is only a possibility but the first element is to identify beyond doubt that these three persons were amongst the dead. There, is no evidence to show that any of these the persons were recognized amongst the dead. If they were not amongst the dead, it leads to an inference that they were not in the ill-fated train and they did not perish in the accident. In this view of the matter, their dependents cannot claim any amount by way of compensation from the Railways. The Court below has rightly held that the claimants themselves did not know whether these three persons travelled in the ill-fated train or not and whether they held any ticket or not. In view of the aforesaid evidence on record it cannot be held that the conclusion reached by the Court below wrock. The finding that these three persons alleged to have perished in the aforesaid train accident) were not proved to have been travelling by the ill-fated train, is correct and is upheld.

4. There is another aspect of the case i.e. only those passengers travelling with a valid ticket are entitled to claim compensation. In a recent decision in Smt. Sundari Devi v. Union of India 1984 (1) ACC 211, Full Bench of this Court has held that compensation can be claimed only in respect of a person who was a bonafide passenger. Any body who did not have a ticket or valid pass or travel document cannot be held to be a bonafide passenger. In view of the above decision, the appellant had to prove beyond doubt that three persons for whom she was claiming compensation, were actually travelling by the ill-fated train, and that they perished in the aforementioned accident and that they bonafide passengers. None of these facts has been established in this case. Consequently, the Adhoc Claims Commissioner was perfectly justified in dismissing the claim.

5. Having examined the record of the case, we are satisfied that the appeal has no merits. Whatsoever and it must also fail for the above reasons. The question whether the appellant was dependent of the deceased and was entitled to the compensation for the persons who are alleged to have been perished in the accident, does not arise once it is found that there was no proof that they had perished in the aforesaid accident.

6. For the reasons indicated above, we find no forced in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no orders as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //