Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 416 (PAT)

Mira Devi v. Union of India

2012-03-06

SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA

body2012
JUDGMENT : Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 7th of August 2009 in Claim Case No. OA 00208/2004 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), the claim of the widow for the death of her husband in the untoward incident was dismissed, hence the present appeal is preferred. The short facts is that on 24.10.2004, the deceased was coming Patna from Lucknow by Train No. 5635 down (Okha-Guwhati Express) after purchasing a valid ticket and boarded the train at Lucknow on 23.10.2004. In the morning, near about Bihia Railway Station, while the deceased was washing his hand at the wash basin near the gate of the bogie of the train, due to slippry floor near the basin, he slipped and fell down from the running train resulting his death on the spot. On information given by the Station Master, Bihia to the G.R.P., Bihia, an U.D. Case No. 36 of 2004 dated 24.10.2004 was registered. The dead body was sent for post mortem. The police after investigation submitted the police report with respect to the aforesaid untoward incident in which the deceased had died. The aforesaid claim case claiming a compensation of Rs. 4 lacs was accordingly filed. The railway administration appeared and filed written statement denying the claim as also the averments made in the claim application. The applicants in support of the claim adduced oral as well as documentary evidence on the record. However, no evidence i.e. oral as well as documentary was brought on the record on behalf of the railway. The Tribunal upon considering the evidence brought on record on behalf of the applicants, dismissed the claim upon holding that the witness cannot be relied for having discrepancy in their evidence as also for want of the evidences of the person who could have been important witness and as such, disbelieved the evidence of applicant witness, including AW-2 and AW-3. The appellant witness A.W. 2 claimed himself to be an eye witness with respect to the untoward incident and AW-3 was the person who purchased the ticket for the deceased at Lucknow Railway Station and boarded him in the train in question on 23rd of October 2004 in the evening at about 8.30 P.M. at Lucknow Railway Station. 2. The appellant witness A.W. 2 claimed himself to be an eye witness with respect to the untoward incident and AW-3 was the person who purchased the ticket for the deceased at Lucknow Railway Station and boarded him in the train in question on 23rd of October 2004 in the evening at about 8.30 P.M. at Lucknow Railway Station. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that learned Tribunal committed serious error of law in appreciating the evidence of the applicants brought on record; oral as well as documentary. The Tribunal instead of appreciating the evidences liberally virtually adopted the standard of scrutiny required in criminal trial. The Tribunal ought to have appreciated the proceedings being summary in nature, arising out of beneficial legislation should have considered the evidences oral as well as documentary in its correct prospective and in its totality. It is further submitted that in the evidence AW-2, Samsher Sharma, categorically stated in its affidavit as well as in his cross-examination that he had seen the untoward incident in which the deceased had fallen down from the running train in his presence and there was nothing in his cross-examination which suggests that he was not an eye witness. Similarly, AW-3, namely, Pradip Kumar Srivastava had categorically stated in his affidavit as also in the cross-examination that the deceased being a family Purohit, had come at Lucknow and returned back on 23rd of October 2004 by the aforesaid train. The ticket was purchased by AW-3. He got the deceased boarded in the train himself. Besides the evidence of these two important persons in support of the untoward incident, the applicants have brought oral as well as documentary evidence. Besides the above, the memo issued by Station Master, Railway Station, Bihia (Ext. - A3) stating about the death of a person aged about 35-45 years, died in the incident by train No. 5635 down. The First Information Report vide Exhibit-4 was lodged by one Anil Kumar Pandey who came to the spot on being informed by a co-passenger. An inquest report was also prepared vide Exhibit-A/6 mentioning therein that the cause of death due to the said unnatural incident. The post mortem report (Exhibit-A/7) mentions that the injury sustained by the deceased caused his death. The Final Report (Exhibit A/8) submitted by the police after investigation concluded that the deceased died in the aforesaid untoward incident. An inquest report was also prepared vide Exhibit-A/6 mentioning therein that the cause of death due to the said unnatural incident. The post mortem report (Exhibit-A/7) mentions that the injury sustained by the deceased caused his death. The Final Report (Exhibit A/8) submitted by the police after investigation concluded that the deceased died in the aforesaid untoward incident. The applicant brought record her Identity Card issued by Election Commission of India (Exhibit-A/9). It is submitted that on perusal of the evidences oral as well as documentary, the rejection of her claim case was totally unjustified and against the materials on the record, the claim ought to have been allowed. 3. Mr. Anil Singh, Learned Counsel for the respondent -Railway Administration on the other hand, submits that the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim for the reasons that the evidences were not inspiring the confidence. It is further submitted that name of the persons, as mentioned in the Inquest Report as also the informant of the police case ought to have been examined. A person, who informed the informant about the untoward incident, should had also been examined. Moreover, there were some cuttings on the date mentioned in the Fardbeyan also created doubt with respect to the entire incident. In reply, Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that railway ought to have brought on record the report of the Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) on the record which has been brought as Annexure- 3 to the Memo of Appeal. The report of the DRM accepts the death of the deceased in the aforesaid untoward incident, however, stated that the railway cannot be held responsible. 4. Considering the submissions of the parties and on perusal of the claim application as also the evidences oral as well as documentary as noticed above, it would appear that the deceased boarded the train at Lucknow with the IInd Class Railway Ticket from Lucknow to Patna. The evidence of AW-3 is specific on this issue that he purchased the ticket for the deceased and boarded him in the train. Discarding his evidence on the ground that no document was produced in support of the fact that he boarded the deceased on the train as stated in his affidavit as also the cross-examination could not be a valid ground. Discarding his evidence on the ground that no document was produced in support of the fact that he boarded the deceased on the train as stated in his affidavit as also the cross-examination could not be a valid ground. As regards the occurrence of the untoward incident, AW -2, namely, Shamsher Sharma has specifically stated in its affidavit as also in the cross-examination that the deceased had fallen down from the train in his presence and he informed the Station Master, Bihia Railway Station. The absence of his name in the inquest report, cannot dilute his specific evidence in absence of any counter evidence or anything brought in his cross-examination which could disbelieve his assertion that the untoward incident as occurred in his presence. The suggestion given to him that he did not see the accident, was emphatically denied by him. As regards the documentary evidence, Learned Counsel appearing for the railway administration submits that appearing of the date 23.10.2004 in FIR which was corrected as 24.10.2004 and also the timing and as such, it becomes doubtful and consequently the police report submitted by the police vide Exhibit A/8 also become doubtful. The submission of the counsel for the railway cannot be accepted. The document, affidavits as also oral evidence brought on the record should be considered in its totality. There could be minor discrepancy not affecting the very substance of the matter cannot be given undue importance in face of the evidence on the record establishing that the deceased was travelling on the train who fell down from the train and died on the spot. Inquest report was prepared, post mortem was held, First information report was lodged and police submitted its report supporting the fact of the incident in which the deceased had died, could not be ignored. There approach should be liberal in appreciating the evidences in such proceedings, moreover, in absence of any counter evidence negating the claims. The claim application cannot be expected to be equated with the plaint in the civil suit and also the evidence cannot be expected to stand the scrutiny at very high standard in face of sufficient material on record in support of the claim. 5. The claim application cannot be expected to be equated with the plaint in the civil suit and also the evidence cannot be expected to stand the scrutiny at very high standard in face of sufficient material on record in support of the claim. 5. On consideration of the evidences oral as also the documentary brought on the record on behalf of the applicants, this Court finds that the applicants have established their claim for compensation as claimed by them. 6. In the result, for the reasons and discussions made above, the order under the appeal is set aside. The aforesaid claim case No. 0A 000208/2004 claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- (four lacs) on account of the death of the deceased, is allowed in terms of the Part - I of the schedule to The Railway Accidents and Untoward Incident (compensation) Rules 1990 with simple interest at the rate of 6 percent from the date of filing of the application till payment. Such payment be made within a period of three months. 7. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed as indicated above. The Lower Court Records be sent down without delay.