New Delhi: Dismissing
a minor boy's fraudulent claim for compensation for injuries
allegedly sustained after falling down from a train, the Delhi
High Court ordered action against him for making a false claim and
also observed that the railway claims tribunal act was being
Justice Valmiki J. Mehta said: "It is high time that this practice
of filing fraudulent claims against the railways... is looked into
very strictly, though, of course, in those limited number of cases
where it is ex-facie clear that a fraud is sought to be
perpetrated on the railways."
"I am noticing that many cases are coming up before this court
where it is more than amply clear that there is a systematic
endeavour to defraud the railways because of the enactment and
implementation of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, which
provides for statutorily fixed compensation in case of an untoward
incident," he said.
Justice Mehta said that the applicant committed the offence of
perjury, giving false evidence, giving and using false declaration
and making a false claim.
"Accordingly, while dismissing the appeal, I direct the registrar
general to make a complaint to the concerned metropolitan
magistrate having jurisdiction," said Justice Mehta said Thursday.
The applicant, while appealing against a railway tribunal's order,
said that he along with his father, while travelling in an
electrical multiple unit (EMU) train March 2, 2010, from Dayabasti
to Sadar Bazar railway station, fell down from the train and
sustained injuries. He said that their tickets were also lost in
Dismissing the plea, the court said: "I completely agree with the
findings of the Railway Claims Tribunal in that the appellant had
failed to make out the requisite case that he was injured while
travelling as a bonafide passenger in a train."
In the present case, the alleged ticket was admittedly not with
the minor but with his father, who suffered no injuries and who
claimed to have continued the travel in the train till the next
station, the court said.
"The facts of the present case show a clear attempt by the
applicant, who is only a minor, and therefore actually his father,
to defraud the railways," said the court.
"For pursuing a fraudulent case and seeking compensation, perjury
has been committed by making statements on oath before the Railway
Claims Tribunal by filing an affidavit by the minor's father,"
said Justice Mehta.