Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 684 (JHR)

Anita Devi v. Union of India

2014-07-02

D.N.UPADHYAY

body2014
Order This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 9.4.2013 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, in connection with OA Case No. (IIU) RNC/2010/0032 Old No. OA (IIU)9019/09, whereby the application for grant of compensation filed by the appellant, wife of the deceased Rajiv Kumar Verma @ Raju, has been dismissed. 2. Facts of the case, in brief is that on 22.10.2008, a person in course of crossing railway track met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries. Name of the deceased was detected as Rajiv Kumar Verma @ Raju. Fard beyan of Sudheshwar Prasad Verma was recorded on 20.10.2008 at 14 hours near KM 416/15, PS Chutia, Ranchi by ASI K. Das of Rail PS Ranchi. It is stated that after receiving information that dead body of his son Rajiv Kumar Verma is lying between Namkum and Ranchi Railway station near Pole No. 115/15, he went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of his son. It is stated that his son might have met with an accident in course of crossing railway track. 3. Smt. Anita Devi, wife of the deceased Rajiv Kumar Verma, has filed an application on 12.1.2009 for grant of compensation under section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 alleging therein that her husband died in course of travelling in the train. The incident comes within the definition of untoward incident under section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. 4. The opposite party, Union of India, through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, has appeared and filed written statement. The applicant has examined three witnesses i.e. Sudheshwar Pd. Verma AW1, father of the deceased Anita Devi, applicant wife of the deceased AW2, and Dinesh Prasad as AW3. All the three witnesses have furnished their deposition in examination in chief on affidavit. During cross examination, AW1 admits that he had given statement in his fard beyan that his son Rajiv Kumar Verma might have sustained injuries in course of crossing railway track, but again he says that he was directed to put his signature on a blank piece of paper and he was not in a condition to give correct statement. 5. AW2 Anita Devi has stated that her husband was an insurance agent and in course of his business, he used to move from one place to another. 5. AW2 Anita Devi has stated that her husband was an insurance agent and in course of his business, he used to move from one place to another. On he date of incident, he had informed that he would be out of station and would come back by Train No. 3303, Dhanbad Ranchi Intercity Express on 22.10.2008. She learnt about the incident from her father-in-law, but she did not witness the occurrence. AW3 Dinesh Prasad has stated that he was travelling with the deceased on the said train and he was coming from Muri to Ranchi. Before this train reached Ranchi railway Station, the deceased went for toilet and later he could learn that the person who was travelling with him had met with accident and died. He has failed to produce any valid ticket. Copies of the statement of Sudheshwar Pd Verma and other documents have been brought on record. 6. Learned tribunal after considering the evidence and the documents on record has dismissed the claim application filed by the applicant on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger; no ticket was produced and the deceased was not travelling in the train at the time of incident. Since the offence does not come under section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, the applicant was not entitled to compensation. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the deceased had informed his wife, Anita Devi applicant, that he would be out of station for a day and would come back to Ranchi by Dhanbad Ranchi intercity Express on 22.10.2008. AW3 Dinesh Prasad who was a co-passenger has supported the contention of the applicant. AW1 who is father of the deceased, has stated before this Court that his signature was obtained on a blank piece of paper by the police authority. He was not in a position to give his statement at that point of time. Loss of ticket, or non production of ticket, is no ground for refusal of the claim and the learned tribunal has committed gross error in passing the impugned judgment which is fit to be set aside and compensation is payable to the claimant as per law. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the argument and submitted that no ticket was produced. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the argument and submitted that no ticket was produced. No evidence has been adduced to the effect that the deceased was travelling by train no. 3303 Dhanbad Ranchi Express. The tribunal has rightly refused to grant compensation. 9. I have gone though the records and the impugned judgment. Admittedly, no travelling ticket in respect of the deceased was produced by the applicant and it was not detected from possession of the deceased. Father of the deceased (AW1) had given his fard beyan before ASI Ranchi Rail Police in which he had stated that his son might have met with accident in course of crossing the railway track. Before filing of claim application and his examination before the tribunal, he had not raised any objection before any authority that he was directed to put his signature on a blank piece of paper. In course of cross examination, he has admitted that he had given his statement that his son Rajiv Kumar Verma might have met with accident in course of crossing railway track. AW2 who is the applicant had also not stated this fact before any authority after the incident and before filing of the claim application that her husband had informed that he would be out of station and he would come back on 22.10.2008 by Dhanbad Ranchi Intercity Express. AW3 who was a co-passenger also failed to prove that he was travelling in the train with the deceased. No witness has come forward to say that he had seen the deceased either purchasing ticket or boarding the train at any station. On the other hand, the statement of the Guard of Train no. 3303 Dhanbad Ranchi Express was recorded and he has stated that no such incident took place on the date of incident. The tribunal has discussed all these issues in the impugned judgment and I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the tribunal. 10. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.