Delhi High Court Dismisses Widow’s Compensation Claim After Husband’s Alleged Fall from Train
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court denied compensation to a widow after her husband’s death, citing a critical discrepancy in the timing of a train ticket. The court found that the ticket was purchased four hours after the train had already departed. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri upheld a previous decision by the Railway Claims Tribunal, which had rejected the claim from Sunaina Devi, the widow of Shambhu Manjhi.
Details of the Case
Sunaina Devi claimed her husband was traveling from Patna Junction to New Delhi on the Brahmaputra Mail on April 17, 2011. However, the ticket she provided was purchased at 5:47 PM that day, while railway records indicated that the train had left Patna Junction at 1:18 PM. The court noted that this discrepancy undermined the foundation of her case, as there was insufficient evidence to prove that Manjhi was a bona fide passenger on the train.
Devi argued that Manjhi fell from the train due to a sudden jerk in a crowded compartment. She stated that he was taken to Patna Medical College and Hospital (PMCH), where he later died from his injuries. Despite her claims, the court found no satisfactory evidence to support her assertion that Manjhi had boarded the train based on the ticket she provided.
Arguments from Indian Railways
Indian Railways contested the claim, pointing out several inconsistencies in the evidence. They highlighted the timing of the ticket purchase and questioned the date of Manjhi’s death. While Devi stated he died on April 17, a police statement from Manjhi’s cousin indicated he died on April 18. The court noted that no admission records or death certificate from PMCH were submitted to substantiate the claim.
Court’s Findings
Justice Ohri emphasized that the absence of a recovered ticket does not automatically disqualify a claim for compensation. However, the claimant must establish the basic facts necessary to prove the status of a bona fide passenger. The court concluded that the ticket presented did not correspond with the journey Manjhi was alleged to have taken. As a result, the court determined that Devi failed to meet the initial burden of proof required for compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act.
Observer Voice is the one stop site for National, International news, Sports, Editor’s Choice, Art/culture contents, Quotes and much more. We also cover historical contents. Historical contents includes World History, Indian History, and what happened today. The website also covers Entertainment across the India and World.
Follow Us on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, & LinkedIn
