Case Law Details
Shri. Harish Chandra Damodar Gaikwad Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
The signature of the appellant on season ticket, was not disputed by the Railways. Moreover, season ticket and the journey extension tickets, were recovered, from the appellant while removing him at Hospital. In the circumstances, non-production of Identity Card alongwith season ticket, itself would not render proper season ticket, invalid.
Expression “passenger” as defned under Section 2(28) of Act of 1989 means, “a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket. Expression “ticket” is not defned under the Act. However, term “pass” defned under Section 2(28) does not include ticket. Thus, to be understood, ticket includes “season ticket”, which is popularly known as “Pass”. Herein, appellant was travelling in the passenger train with valid and proper season ticket no.6249200 with journey extension tickets and this fact was not in dispute. Inspite of it, Tribunal held, appellant was travelling “without ticket” and thus concluded, applicant was not a “bonafde passenger”. Question is, whether, for want of identity card, season ticket, carried and possessed by applicant-passenger, was invalid, and as such, was not “Bonafde Passenger”? In the context of these facts, respondents relied on instructions issued by the Ministry of Railways. Instructions stipulate that;
“It is necessary for the passenger to produce the identity card alongwith the season ticket, otherwise the season ticket will be invalid and passenger will be treated without ticket. It is necessary that, particulars of the passenger are properly and correctly entered on the Identity Card and the photograph frmly pasted thereon. The booking clerk will put a station stamp in such a way that half of the stamp appears on the photograph and remaining part appears on the Identity Card.”
Although, instructions stipulate, season ticket would be invalid for want of Identity Card, in my view, for more than one reason, non-production of the Identity Card alongwith the season ticket by a passenger, who had sustained injury due to accidental fall, itself would not render valid season ticket, invalid. First reason is that, applicant was travelling with valid and proper season ticket. Therefore, he was “Passenger” within the meaning of Section 2(29) of the Act. Second reason is, instructions relied on by the Railways, cannot be said to be ‘mandatory’ and therefore would not render, proper season ticket, automatically invalid for non-production of identity card. Furthermore, in terms of provisions of Section 54 of the Act of 1989, every passenger shall, on demand by, any railway servant present his “pass” or “ticket” to such railway servant for examination during the journey. Therefore, passenger producing proper season ticket without, identify card, ipso-facto, would not render season ticket, improper and/or invalid, unless, it is proved that passenger was using season ticket, that was issued in the name of another person. Although, Section 53 of the Act, prohibits transfer of ‘certain tickets’ however, it is not respondent’s case that, season ticket produced by the applicant was issued in the name of another person. Even otherwise, in this case, the appellant had discharged the initial burden by filing an Affidavit of relevant facts. Whereafter, burden was shifted on the Railways to prove that, he was not a “bonafide passenger”. Herein, appellant had produced the valid season ticket bearing his signature and also journey extension tickets, which bore season ticket no.62490200. The signature of the appellant on season ticket, was not disputed by the Railways. Moreover, season ticket and the journey extension tickets, were recovered, from the appellant while removing him at Hospital. In the circumstances, non-production of Identity Card alongwith season ticket, itself would not render proper season ticket, invalid. Besides, in the case of Union of India Versus. Rina Devi, the Apex Court has held that, mere presence of body on railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that, injured or deceased was a “bonafide passenger” for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or a deceased, will not negative the claim that he was a “bonafide passenger”. Initial burden would be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an Affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown by the attending circumstances. Herein, the appellant has discharged the initial burden by fing Affidavit alongwith the relevant documents i.e. valid season ticket, journey extension tickets and report of Constable. However, his evidence has not been rebutted by the respondents-Railways and therefore the fnding recorded by the Tribunal that, he was not a “bonafde passenger” being contrary to evidence, is hereby quashed and set aside. Thus, I hold that, appellant was a “bonafde passenger”.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
