Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 789 (GAU)

Union of India v. Ganesh Roy

2014-08-14

A.K.GOSWAMI

body2014
JUDGMENT Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. By preferring this appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the appellant assails the judgment and order dated 07.03.2013, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in Claim Application No. O.A.-II-09/2011, granting compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs each with interest to the respondents, who are father and mother, respectively, of Lalbabu Roy @ Pankeswar Roy @ Patal. Heard Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. H.P. Barman, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants. 2. The claim petition was filed by the claimants stating that on 10.11.2010, their son was travelling as a bona fide passenger after purchasing proper railway ticket from Golakganj to Kamakhya Railway Station by Train No. 811 UP Dhubri-Kamakhya Passenger Train and at about 2:50 p.m., he accidently fell down in between Dhupdhara Railway Station (East) to Km 102/O from the said running train due to heavy rush of other passengers and as a result, he died on the spot. 3. In the claim petition, which was filed on 23.02.2011, it was mentioned that deceased was travelling by a 2nd Class Railway Ticket No. 16746. Amount of compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- was claimed in the claim petition for death of their son in the untoward incident. 4. The appellant filed a written statement contending that the son of the claimants did not travel by 811 UP Train and also denied that he did not accidently fall down from any running train as he was not a passenger of any train. It was further averred that facts pleaded do not cover any of the provisions of the Railway Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules, 1990 so as to award compensation to the claimants. 5. During trial, father of the deceased examined himself as AW-1. He had stated that on the fateful day, his son was travelling with Shyamal Mahanta towards Kamakhya from Golakganj by Dhubri-Kamakhya Train No. 511 A-UP(01d No. 811 UP) with valid journey ticket. 5. During trial, father of the deceased examined himself as AW-1. He had stated that on the fateful day, his son was travelling with Shyamal Mahanta towards Kamakhya from Golakganj by Dhubri-Kamakhya Train No. 511 A-UP(01d No. 811 UP) with valid journey ticket. He had exhibited the original Railway Journey Ticket No. 16746 as Exhibit -A-I. He had also exhibited the information given to Officer-in-Charge of Dhupdhara Police Station by Station Superintendent, N.F. Railway, Dhupdhara, based on which, Dhupdhara Police Station registered Unnatural Death Case No. 10/2010, the certified copy of the report requesting Post-Mortem examination Inquest Report and certified copy of the Post-mortem Report as Exhibit - A-II, A-III, A-IV and A-V respectively. 6. AW- 2 had filed evidence on affidavit that he had travelled with the deceased by purchasing two railway journey tickets. He had stated that due to heavy rush and thrust of other passengers, Pankeshwar accidently fell down but he had no way to get down from the running train. He got down from the said passenger train at the next stoppage and immediately returned to the place of occurrence at Dhupdhara Railway Station and later on, he came to know that the police personnel of Dhupdhara Police Station had taken the victim/injured to the Police Station. He had submitted his Railway Ticket No. 16747, which is exhibited as Exhibit A/1. 7. The appellant did not examine any witness but produced four documents, marked as R/1, R/2, R/3 and R/4. R/1 is the Report of Sr. DSC/RPF dated 06.06.2011, R/2 is the Report of Inspector/RPF/GLPF dated 30.05.2011, R/3 is the statement of one Matlib Ali, who was a Railway employee of Dhupdhara Yard, and R/4 is the SM's Diary. 8. AW -1 and AW-2 were cross-examined by the Presenting Officer of the Appellant. AW -1 stated in cross that the ticket was handed over to him by AW-2. AW-2, in his cross-examination stated that he had produced the ticket purchased by him before the Tribunal. He had stated in cross that the statement he made in his evidence on affidavit that he was submitting Exhibit -A-I was a false statement. It was further stated by him that the cost of the ticket was Rs. 38/- each. 9. Mr. AW-2, in his cross-examination stated that he had produced the ticket purchased by him before the Tribunal. He had stated in cross that the statement he made in his evidence on affidavit that he was submitting Exhibit -A-I was a false statement. It was further stated by him that the cost of the ticket was Rs. 38/- each. 9. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was no Train No. 811 UP as stated in the claim petition and therefore, the entire case set up by the claimants is not to be believed. He has further submitted that even with regard to the tickets, there is contradiction between the evidence of AW-1 and AW-2 as AW-2 had acknowledged that what he stated in his evidence-in-chief with regard to the ticket was false. He emphasized that in R/l document, which is a statutory report pertaining to investigation, it was categorically recorded that no journey ticket was found on the deceased and therefore, the learned Tribunal was wrong in awarding compensation to the claimants. 10. Mr. Barman, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that there is no error in the judgment of the Tribunal and the Tribunal marshalled the evidence on record in its correct perspective and no interference with regard to the said judgment is called for. It is submitted that wrong mentioning of the ticket number is not fatal to the case of the claimants when the tickets were produced. He concedes that there was some confusion with regard to the tickets and the ticket which was attributed to the deceased, in fact, was of the AW-2 and vice-versa and wrong mentioning of the ticket numbers will not materially alter the fact that the deceased was travelling in the train as a bona fide passenger. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered the materials on record. It appears that Dhubri-Kamakhya Passenger is actually Train No. 55611-UP. Document R/3, which is a statement of Md. Matlib Ali shows that after the said train had left Dhupdhara Railway Station, he noticed one male person, who was bleeding profusely, and he thought that he might have fallen from the said train. He informed the authorities arid thereafter, one ambulance came and the staff of the ambulance declared him dead. Document R/3, which is a statement of Md. Matlib Ali shows that after the said train had left Dhupdhara Railway Station, he noticed one male person, who was bleeding profusely, and he thought that he might have fallen from the said train. He informed the authorities arid thereafter, one ambulance came and the staff of the ambulance declared him dead. It is noticed that in A/2, a document of the Railways, it is mentioned that one person had fallen down from running Dhubri-Kamakhya Passenger Train. In the said document, train number was given as Train No. 511 UP. The evidence of AW-2 that he was travelling with the deceased is also not demolished in any manner. Thus, the cumulative evidence on record would go to show that the son of the claimants was travelling in Dhubri-Kamakhya Passenger Train and therefore, I am of the opinion that merely because train number is wrongly indicated in the claim petition or in the evidence, the claim of the claimants cannot be brushed side. 12. Coming to the other issue raised by Mr. Goswami that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the claimants failed to prove by adducing reliable evidence that deceased had purchased ticket, it is to be noted that the claimants had brought on record two Railway tickets with consecutive Nos. 16746 and 16747. The statement of AW-2 in cross-examination with regard to his assertion that the wrong statements were given in his evidence has to be understood in the context of the case that one which was stated to be his, actually was that of the deceased. No suggestion was given to the AW-1, AW-2 during their cross-examination that the tickets produced by them are procured in a clandestine manner in connivance with Railway authorities. Even if document marked R/1 is accepted to be true, wherein it was stated that no journey ticket was found on the deceased, in cross-examination, AW-1 had categorically stated that the ticket was handed over to him by AW-2, meaning thereby the deceased was not carrying his ticket with him but the same was with his friend, AW-2. It is not unnatural that when 2 friends are travelling together, one may keep the tickets. 13. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. It is not unnatural that when 2 friends are travelling together, one may keep the tickets. 13. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Send back the records. Appeal dismissed.