Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 78 (PAT)

Sumintra Devi v. Union of India

2014-01-17

AMARESH KUMAR LAL

body2014
ORDER This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.07.2012 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench in Claim Application No. OA 000142/2002 by which the claim application, filed by the appellant under Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 read with Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 claiming a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of her son due to injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident, has been dismissed. 2. The case of the appellant as per claim application, in brief, is that on 10.12.2001, her son Uday Sao (deceased) boarded in Rajgir-Danapur Shuttle train at Patna Sahib Railway Station with a valid ticket. During journey, he accidentally fell down from the train and received grievous injuries. He was rushed to N.M.C.H, Patna where he died in course of treatment. 3. The respondent filed written statement that the claim application is not maintainable in law. The alleged accident was not an untoward incident in terms of provisions of Section 123 of the Railways (Amendment) Act, 1994. It has not been admitted that the deceased fell down from the passenger train near Patna Sahib Railway Station on 10.12.2001. The claimant has to prove that he was a bonafide passenger of the train having valid ticket. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed:- (i) Whether the deceased was victim of the alleged untoward incident, as defined under Section 123 (C) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989? (ii) Whether the deceased Uday Sao was a bonafide passenger of Rajgir-Danapur train on 10.12.2001, at the time of the alleged untoward incident? (iii) Whether the claim application of the applicant is maintainable? (iv) Whether the applicant/dependents of the deceased are entitled to receive compensation, as claimed for? 5. In support of her claim, the appellant has examined herself as AW-1 and Ganauri Chaudhary as AW-2. In addition to the oral evidence, the following documentary evidence has been filed : Exhibit-A-1 is the affidavit of the appellant, Exbt.A-2 is the affidavit of Ganauri Chaudhary, Exbt.A-3 is the copy of the Fardbeyan of the appellant, Exbt.A-4 is the FIR/final report submitted by the police, Exbt.A-5 is the copy of the inquest report, Exbt.A-6 is the copy of the post-mortem examination report, Exbts. A-7, A-8 and A-9 are the copies of the identity card of Ganauri Chaudhary, Sumitra Devi and Uday Kumar. A-7, A-8 and A-9 are the copies of the identity card of Ganauri Chaudhary, Sumitra Devi and Uday Kumar. 6. The respondents have not produced any witness in support of their contention in the written statement. 7. The learned Tribunal has held that the deceased Uday Sao was not a bonafide rail passenger but an unauthorized vendor and did not die in any untoward incident in the railway and the claim petition has been dismissed. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has misdirected itself that the deceased was selling peanuts in the train and he was an unauthorized vendor and had got no passenger ticket since he was not a bonafide railway passenger but an unauthorized vendor died after slipping from the foot board presumably at the time moving from one coach to another when the train was on the move. There is no evidence on the record to make such idea and presumption. In the claim application, it has been stated that the deceased was going to Patna Junction to Patna Sahib by Rajgir-Danapur Shuttle train having a valid railway ticket and boarded in the train at Patna Sahib Railway station and at some distance from Patna Sahib Railway Station, the deceased fell down from the running train as a result of which, he sustained injuries and he was hospitalized at NMCH, Panta where he died during the treatment. The matter was reported to the Alamganj Police Station and the same was forwarded to the Railway Police, Patna Sahib and accordingly, UD case No.5/2002 has been registered. After investigation, the police has found that the deceased was the victim of the incident is true and the deceased died in the said untoward incident. The fardbeyan of Sumintra Devi has been recorded in the N.M.C.H. Emergency Ward on 10.12.2001 in which it has been stated that her son Uday Sao (deceased) used to sell peanuts by moving. It has not been stated anywhere that the deceased was selling peanut in the train. It has been wrongly mentioned in the fardbeyan “Kal Dinank 9.10.2001 in stead of 9.12.2001. The fardbeyan (Exbt.A-3) was forwarded to the Railway Police Patna Sahib. The police has investigated the case and submitted final form (Ext.A/4) that the deceased fell down from the train and got injuries which caused his death. It has been wrongly mentioned in the fardbeyan “Kal Dinank 9.10.2001 in stead of 9.12.2001. The fardbeyan (Exbt.A-3) was forwarded to the Railway Police Patna Sahib. The police has investigated the case and submitted final form (Ext.A/4) that the deceased fell down from the train and got injuries which caused his death. The police has also prepared the inquest report (Ext.A-5) which has been witnessed by Ganauri Chaudhary (AW-2) and Awadhesh Prasad (not examined). The reason for the death has also been mentioned in this report as due to falling down from the train. The post-mortem report (Exbt.A-6) also shows that there was crush injury and the doctor has opined that the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock caused by hard and blunt substance. 9. It appears from the evidence of A.W.1, the mother of the deceased (appellant) that she was not present at the time of occurrence. In his cross-examination, she has stated that she was not traveling with her son (deceased). He used to sell peanuts in the moving on the road. He was not selling peanuts in the train. 10. AW.2 has also stated in his cross-examination that the occurrence took place on 9.12.2001 by the Rajgir-Danapur Shuttle train at Begampur Patna City. The deceased had purchased a ticket prior to the journey. He has also not stated that the deceased was selling peanut in the train. There is no evidence on the record to show that the deceased was an unauthorized vendor in the train and he was not a bonafide passenger. 11. It is submitted that there is minor discrepancy in the pleading and in the evidence. It is to be noted that the appellant is an illiterate lady and there is minor discrepancy in the date of occurrence which should be ignored and the claim Tribunal should not have been thrown the claim petition on the basis of minor discrepancy. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision in the case of Ram Sudha Devi and the Union of India reported in 2013 (1) PLJR 727 . 12. He has further submitted that it is settled principle of law that onus to prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger is on the respondent railway. In support of his contention, he has referred to a decision in the case of Smt. Kaushalaya Devi and Ors. Vs. 12. He has further submitted that it is settled principle of law that onus to prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger is on the respondent railway. In support of his contention, he has referred to a decision in the case of Smt. Kaushalaya Devi and Ors. Vs. Union of India through the General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, U.P. reported in 2008 (3) PLJR 711 in which it has been held in Para 5 as follows : - “Railways Act provides prosecution of persons entering Railway Stations without valid journey ticket or platform ticket. That makes it abundantly clear that without a ticket, either for undertaking a journey or for the purpose of visiting the platform, no one is entitle to be within the precincts of a Railway Station. That the person was in the precincts of the Railway Station would, therefore, logically have a presumption that he had a ticket for him. That he did not have a ticket was obligatory on the part of the Railway Administration to prove. The Railway Administration could bring on record of the claim case necessary circumstances, which would lead to a conclusion that the person concerned was a ticketless traveller or a ticketless wanderer. In the instant case, if the Inquest Report had indicated the contents of the pocket of the shirt and of the pair of trousers of the deceased or the persons, who conducted the inquest, had come and deposed, a circumstance could be created for a person to believe that the deceased was a ticketless traveller, but no such step having been taken ,it is surprising that the Railway Administration was advised to prefer an appeal against the award and thereby waste further public time ,energy and money”. 13. He has further submitted that the Railways Act being beneficial piece of legislation, it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. In support of his contention, he has referred to a decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Ors. reported in 2008 (4) PLJR 40 SC. 14. He has further submitted that the claimant appellant is entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of award and thereafter @ 9% per annum till the payment until payment of the same. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Ors. reported in 2008 (4) PLJR 40 SC. 14. He has further submitted that the claimant appellant is entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of award and thereafter @ 9% per annum till the payment until payment of the same. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision in the case of Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2009) 7 SCC 372 . 15. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the date of occurrence according to Fardebyan is 9.10.2001, whereas, the Fardbeyan is given on 10.12.2001. 9.10.2001 is the date of death. There is no report of Station Master regarding the occurrence and it is not a case of untoward incident. 16. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that in the claim petition the date of occurrence has been mentioned as 10.12.2001. It appears that it is a clerical mistake or bonafide mistake. The fardbeyan of the appellant has been recorded at N.M.C.H. by the police. From perusal of the Fardbeyan (Ext.A-3), it appears that the fardbeyan of the appellant was recorded by S.I. D. Ram of Alamganj Police Station on 10.12.2001 at 9 hours in NMCH Emergency Ward in which it has been stated that her son Uday Sao used to sell peanuts by moving. Yesterday on 9.10.2001, he came to know that he fell down from the train and become injured near the railway line at Begampur as he fell down from the train. Here 9.10.2001 is obviously a slip of pen for the date 9.12.2001. The date of death in her affidavit (Ext.A-1) has been stated that on 9.12.2001 her son was going to Patna Junction from Patna Sahib railway station for some work. He boarded at Rajgir Danapur Shuttle train with a valid railway ticket with Ganauri Chaudhary (AW-2). There was heavy rush in the train. She has specifically stated in paragraph 5 that he used to sell peanuts on the road. In his cross-examination, she has specifically stated that the deceased was not selling peanuts in the train. A.W.2 has stated in his cross-examination that the occurrence took place on 9.12.2001 while the deceased was going with him for work to Patna Junction. She has specifically stated in paragraph 5 that he used to sell peanuts on the road. In his cross-examination, she has specifically stated that the deceased was not selling peanuts in the train. A.W.2 has stated in his cross-examination that the occurrence took place on 9.12.2001 while the deceased was going with him for work to Patna Junction. He has also not stated anywhere that the deceased was selling peanut in the train. A.W.2 has stated that he saw the deceased purchasing ticket and he has also purchased ticket. The deceased was traveling in the train with him. 17. In view of the decisions reported in 2013 (1) PLJR 727 minor discrepancy regarding the date of occurrence is ignored. 18. Considering the materials on the record, it appears that the appellant has been able to prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train and he was traveling in the train while he fell down from the train and sustained injuries and his lower limb was crushed. He was hospitalized and during treatment he died on 10.12.2001 due to the injuries caused by the railway. Therefore, the discrepancy in the date of occurrence is a minor mistake and it should have been ignored by the Tribunal. It is an untoward incident as defined in Section 123(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The claimant is entitled to get Rs.4,00,000/- from the Railway-respondent with interest @ 6 % per annum from 17.05.2002 i.e. the date of filing of the claim petition to the date of this order and at the rate of 9 % per annum till the date of realization. The respondent is directed to make payment of the aforesaid amount to the claimant-appellant at an early date. 19. In the result, this appeal is allowed. 20. The parties will bear their own costs.