Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 83 (JHR)

Puspa Majumdar v. Union of India

2014-01-15

D.N.UPADHYAY

body2014
ORDER This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 18.10.2007, passed by the Hon'ble Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Case No. TTU 98009 of 1998 whereby the claim application filed by the appellants was dismissed. 2. The brief facts, appearing on record, is that Ram Krishna Mazumdar, husband of appellant No.1 was travelling by 313 UP passenger train from Bhaga Railway Station to Khanudih Railway Station on 13.12.1997. At the time of getting down at Khanudih Railway Station, the deceased fell down and crushed under the wheels of the said train resulting his death instantaneously. Appellant No.2 Ranjit Kumar Majumdar, son of the deceased, after receiving such information, rushed to the place of occurrence and identified the dead body of his father lying on the platform. The post mortem was conducted on the dead body of late Ram Krishna Majumdar and the information was entered before the authority concerned. The appellants filed a petition for grant of compensation for Rs.4 lacs u/s 124A read with Rule 3 and 4 of the Railways Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. 3. The respondent-South Eastern Railway filed written statement against the claim application and contended that death of late Ram Krishna Majumdar does not come within the purview of untoward incident as defined in the Indian Railway Act. The death did not occur due to fault of railway rather the deceased was careless at the time of getting down from the train and that is the reason he fell down and said incident took place. The death of deceased is not covered under any conditions, as stated in Clause (a) to (e) of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (Amendment 1994). It was further contended that the claimants had failed to prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger in the train. 4. On the basis of pleadings available on record, the learned Railway Claim Tribunal framed following issues:–– 1. Whether death of Sri Ram Krishna Majumdar at the Khanudih Railway platform on 13.12.1997 while traveling from Bhaga to Kanudih by 313 UP train is an Untoward Incident as defined under Section 124 A of the Railways (Amendment) Act, 1994? 2. Whether late Ram Krishna Majumdar was a bonafide passenger of Train No.313 UP? 3. Whether there was negligence and misconduct on the part of Respondent and as such liable to pay compensation as claimed for? 4. 2. Whether late Ram Krishna Majumdar was a bonafide passenger of Train No.313 UP? 3. Whether there was negligence and misconduct on the part of Respondent and as such liable to pay compensation as claimed for? 4. To what relief, if any, the claimants are entitled to? 5. At the conclusion, the learned Claim Tribunal held that the claimants are not entitled for compensation claimed for, they have failed to prove that the death of late Ram Krishna Majumdar comes within the purview of Section 124A of the Indian Railway Act, they have failed to produce valid ticket to show that the deceased was a valid passenger of train No.313 UP. 6. The appellants have submitted before this Court that it was quite impossible for the claimants to produce ticket which the deceased had purchased at the time of boarding the train because the deceased fell down at the time of getting down from the train and slipped on the track and crushed under wheels. Thereafter other formalities have been done and the dead body was brought on the platform. The body was taken for its post mortem examination and there was every possibility of missing the ticket in course of such transactions. The learned counsel has drawn my attention towards the evidence of Dalo Mahto, given on affidavit. This witness has clearly stated that he also boarded on the same train at Bhaga Railway Station for going to Khanudih and at the time of purchasing ticket he had seen the deceased purchasing ticket from the counter. The evidence of witness Dalo Mahto is very clear that the deceased had boarded the train after purchasing ticket. Only because the ticket was not produced, the learned Tribunal should not have held that deceased was not a valid passenger. In this regard the learned counsel has drawn my attention towards the judgment reported in AIR 2004 Karnataka 215 (Smt. Leelavathamma vs. The Union of India) and the judgment reported in 2009 (2) T.A.C. 385 (Ker.) (Union of India vs. Leelamma). The learned counsel further relied on the judgment reported in 2008 ACJ 1895 (Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others) and referred paragraph Nos. 8, 9, 11, 12, 17 and 55 of the said judgment. The learned counsel further relied on the judgment reported in 2008 ACJ 1895 (Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others) and referred paragraph Nos. 8, 9, 11, 12, 17 and 55 of the said judgment. It is argued that the learned Tribunal while deciding issue No.1 at the concluding portion has clearly held that the incident took place while the deceased was getting down from train No.313 UP at Khanudih Railway Station but even then decided the issue in favour of the respondent. The impugned judgment suffers with illegality and based on misconception of law and therefore, liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the claimants did not produce valid ticket to show that deceased was the valid passenger and therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly refused to grant compensation against the death of late Ram Krishna Majumdar. Furthermore, the incident does not come under Clause (a) to (e) of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. There is no illegality in the impugned judgment and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have gone through the impugned judgment, lower court records, evidences available, and the judgments cited before me. In the case of Smt. Leelavathamma vs. The Union of India (supra), it was clearly held by their Lordships in para 6 and 7 as under:–– “6. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. The first and the foremost question that falls for consideration is whether the deceased was a passenger on Train No.284A between Bhadravathi and Bangalore. The Tribunal has answered that question in the negative primarily because the appellant had not been able to produce the ticket purchased by the deceased at the time he boarded the train at Bhadravathi. We find it difficult to subscribe to that view. We say so for two precise reasons. The first is that the deceased was a passenger on the train in question even according to the version of the respondent. In the objections filed on behalf of the respondent, the specific case that was set up by the respondent was that the deceased had boarded Train No.284A (Fast Passenger) at 23.20 hours at Bhadrawathin Railway Station. The first is that the deceased was a passenger on the train in question even according to the version of the respondent. In the objections filed on behalf of the respondent, the specific case that was set up by the respondent was that the deceased had boarded Train No.284A (Fast Passenger) at 23.20 hours at Bhadrawathin Railway Station. The objections go on to state that instead of occupying a seat inside the compartment, the deceased had chosen to travel on the foot board in a state of intoxication. The objections allege that since the deceased was in a state of intoxication, he fell down from the train between Bhadrawathi and Tarikere. It is, therefore, nobody's case that the deceased was not on board of the train at the time of the accident. The admitted case of both the parties is that the deceased was travelling by Train No. 284A between Bhadravathi and Bangalore on the fateful night and that he had fallen off somewhere between Bhadravathi and Tarikere. Inasmuch as the Tribunal made out a case which neither party had set up, it committed a palpable error. 7. The second and the only other aspect which the Tribunal had adverted to in support of its view was that the appellant had not produced the ticket which the deceased is alleged to have purchased. The non-production of the ticket is not in dispute. That does not, however, tantamount to saying that the deceased was a ticketless traveller. The respondent had also not set up any such case in the objections filed by it. If the respondent's case was that the deceased was travelling without a ticket and was not, therefore, a bona fide passenger, there was nothing which prevented it from setting up that case. The absence of any plea in the objections that the deceased was ticketless traveller would, therefore, disentitle the respondent from asserting any such defence at the hearing. That apart just because the train ticket had not been produced could not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the passenger had boarded the train unauthorisedly or was travelling without a ticket. The absence of any plea in the objections that the deceased was ticketless traveller would, therefore, disentitle the respondent from asserting any such defence at the hearing. That apart just because the train ticket had not been produced could not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the passenger had boarded the train unauthorisedly or was travelling without a ticket. The fact that the deceased had fallen off the train and his body was recovered from the track in an injured condition hours after the incident and transported to Tarikere Railway Station and thereafter subjected to postmortem clearly shows that the body was handled at various stages by different agencies. The loss of the train ticket in the course of its recovery from the site, transportation and postmortem and other procedures can well be explained and understood. In the totality of these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger on the Bhadravathi Bangalore train on the fateful night.” 9. The similar view was taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of Union of India vs Leelamma (supra) which is as under:–– (i) Railways Act, 1989, Sections 123 (c) (2) and 124A––Compensation––'Untoward incident'––Deceased while tried to alight from compartment, train moved with a jerk, and deceased fell down between train and platform––Such fall of deceased accidental not disputed––No case made out that was a case of suicide or an attempted suicide or on self-inflicted injury––Also no case that injury was sustained due to any criminal act of deceased or any act committed by him in a state of intoxication––Case covered under “untoward incident”––Railways liable to pay Compensation––Tribunal held justified in awarding Compensation––Award upheld. (ii) Railways Act, 1989, Section 124A––Compensation––Bona fide passenger––Ticket lost in accident––Burden heavily upon Railways to prove that passenger attempted journey without purchasing ticket––Burden not discharged by Railways––Merely because ticket is lost during accident, passenger cannot be labelled as “not a bona fide passenger”. 10. (ii) Railways Act, 1989, Section 124A––Compensation––Bona fide passenger––Ticket lost in accident––Burden heavily upon Railways to prove that passenger attempted journey without purchasing ticket––Burden not discharged by Railways––Merely because ticket is lost during accident, passenger cannot be labelled as “not a bona fide passenger”. 10. The facts of case in hand is also covered by the judgment reported in 2008 A.C.J. 1895 (Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others) in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that even if the incident does not come within the purview of Section 124A and the death occurred due to travelling in train or at the time of boarding or getting down from the train, the claimants are entitled for compensation as provided under Rule 3 and 4 of the Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. 11. I have considered the evidences adduced by the claimants which clearly indicate that the deceased boarded in 313 UP train at Bhaga Railway Station for going to Khanudih and he had purchased ticket. The incident took place at Khanudih Railway Station when the deceased was getting down from the train. Contrary to that the respondent has failed to bring on record that the deceased was not a valid passenger and the incident did not take place at the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time. In the result, the judgment dated 18.10.2007, passed by the Hon'ble Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in case No. TTU 98009 of 1998 stands set aside and the claimants are directed to be paid Rs.4 lacs with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application, as compensation against the death of late Ram Krishna Majumdar. The required compensation must be paid to the claimants within 90 days from the date of this order. 12. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.