Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 4 (GAU)

Lakshmi Rani Choudhury v. Union of India

2015-01-06

PRASANTA KUMAR SAIKIA

body2015
JUDGMENT Prasanta Kumar Saikia, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 08.01.2013, rendered by Railway Claims Tribunal at Guwahati in O.A. No. IIU/GHY/2008/0039 (old No. OA-IIU-39/08) dismissing the claim petition of then appellant I have heard Mr. S.S.S. Rahman, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. B. Devi, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The facts projected through the claim petition which gave rise aforementioned proceeding in short are that on 09.10.2007, while one Dilip Kr. Choudhury, since deceased, was travelling from Nilam Bazar to Anipur by a passenger train under a valid ticket bearing No. 01377, he suddenly fell down from the train at Anipur Railway Station and was ran over by the train. 3. As a result of such accident, his legs were separated. After the incident, he was immediately taken to Ram Krishna Nagar Primary Health Centre, Karimganj where from he was shifted to Silchar Medical Hospital for better treatment. While he was undergoing treatment, his son lodged an FIR with O.C., Ratabari Police Station on 07.11.2007 alleging that his father met with an accident on 09.10.2007 after falling from running train which caused him to suffer serious injuries. 4. Thereafter, in course of time, a claim petition was filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati on 14.07.2008. However, on 02.07.2010, one Usha Rani Choudhury, the wife of the aforesaid Dilip Kumar Choudhury filed an application before the Tribunal seeking substitution of the legal heirs of Dilip Kumar Choudhury stating that her husband died on 11.10.2008 and such death was occasioned by the injuries, he sustained in the accident aforementioned. 5. The Tribunal, noting that such application seeking substitution of the legal heirs of the aforesaid person was filed well beyond the period fixed by law for substituting the legal heirs of the deceased, rejected the application and refused to restore to the file the claim petition which was dismissed in the meantime. 6. However, by the order dated 28.8.2012, the application seeking restoration of the original claim petition was allowed and said proceeding was allowed to continue in its original number after bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased. Notice of the claim petition was served on the respondent The respondent entered appearance and contested the case having filed the written statement 7. Notice of the claim petition was served on the respondent The respondent entered appearance and contested the case having filed the written statement 7. In the written statement, the respondent-Railway denied the allegation that the deceased died due to injuries, sustained by him, on 09.10.2007 for his alleged felling from a train. Their further case was that even if one assumes for the sake of argument that the deceased met with an accident at Anipur Railway Station on 09.10.2007 for his alleged falling from a running train, still then, he was not entitled to any compensation under the concerned Act. 8. In that connection, it has been stated that there is nothing on record to show that Dilip Kumar Choudhury, since deceased, was a bonafide passenger travelling in train from one place to other under a valid ticket so as to bring the accident aforesaid within the term "untoward incident" as defined under Section 123/124 of the Indian Railway Act l989 entitling the legal heirs of aforesaid person to claim compensation from the respondent authority. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed and the parties were put on trial: "A. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train by which he travelled? B. Whether the incident is covered under the Section 123/124A of the Railways Act, 1989? C. Whether the applicant is entitled for the compensation, as applied for? D. Relief & Order?" 10. During the course of trial, the applicant had submitted the following documents, viz., (1) Railway Journey Act (A1), (2) FIR of the application's son (A2), (3) Discharge Certificate (A3)(4) Medical Card (A4), (5) Panchayat Certificate (A5), (6) Medical Certificate(A6), (7) Photo - (A7), (8) Disability Certificate (A8) & (9) Death Certificate (A9). On the other hand, the respondent did not submit any document in rebuttal. 11. On hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant in O.A. No. HU/GHY/2008/0039 could not make out that the deceased was a bonafide passenger in the train in question. Nor could he establish that accident aforesaid comes within the purview of untoward incident as defined in Section 123/124 of the Indian Railway Act and as such, he is not entitled to any compensation as prayed for. In the result, the application was dismissed. 12. Nor could he establish that accident aforesaid comes within the purview of untoward incident as defined in Section 123/124 of the Indian Railway Act and as such, he is not entitled to any compensation as prayed for. In the result, the application was dismissed. 12. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner has approached this court seeking quashment of the judgment rendered in the claim petition, stated above, alleging that such a judgment was rendered not in accordance with prescription of law. According to learned counsel for the appellant there are undisputable evidence to show that on 09.10.2007, Dilip Kumar Choudhury (since deceased) was a bonafide passenger travelling from Nilam Bazar to Anipur under a valid ticket 13. Such revelations unmistakably demonstrate that said Dilip Kumar Chouhdury sustained serious injuries for falling from a running train at Anipur Railway Station and as such, such an accident needs to be treated as untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 of the Indian' Railway Act which ultimately occasioned the death of such a person on 11.10.2008. As such, his legal heirs are well Entitled to compensation to be paid in accordance with the law. 14. This contention was, however, objected to by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent stating that the documents, adduced from the side of the petitioner, no way establish that on 09.10.2007 while travelling from Nilam Bazar to Anipur under a valid ticket, the husband of the appellant/petitioner met with an accident to take such incident within the four walls of untoward incident requiring the respondent to pay his legal heirs the compensation in accordance with law. 15. I have considered the rival submissions, advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the evidence on record and the judgment under challenge. 16. Before I proceed further, it needs to be ascertained as to whether the deceased was involved in the incident in question for which he lost both of his legs and which ultimately occasioned his death. It is specific cases of the appellant that her husband was travelling from Nilam Bazar to Anipur under a valid ticket vide railway ticket No. 01377. However, when he reached Anipur station, he somehow fell down from the running train for which he lost both the legs. 17. It is specific cases of the appellant that her husband was travelling from Nilam Bazar to Anipur under a valid ticket vide railway ticket No. 01377. However, when he reached Anipur station, he somehow fell down from the running train for which he lost both the legs. 17. He was immediately shifted to Ram Krishna Nagar Primary Health Centre wherefrom he was shifted to Silchar Medical Hospital for better treatment. 18. One may note here that if one believes the claim of the appellant that the victim met with an accident at Anipur Railway Station, then, it would have invariably been noticed by Railway authority and in that event, it must be an unavoidable duty and responsibility on the party of Railway authority to instruct its officials to do all the needful including recording of such incident in appropriate manner as well as providing necessary medical help to such a victim. 19. However, there is nothing on record to show that the railway authority was ever aware of such an incident which allegedly occurred on 09.10.2007 at Anipur Railway Station. This raises a serious doubt about the authenticity of the claim of the appellant that on the fateful day, Dilip Kumar Choudury sustained injuries in an untoward incident which occurred at Anipur Railway Station. 20. It is also the specific case of the appellant that the victim was immediately taken to Ram Krishna Nagar Primary Health Centre by police wherefrom he was shifted to Silchar Medical Hospital for better treatment. If that be the position, some kind of entries about such incident should have been made by concerned police station in its relevant records. 21. However, once again, there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the concerned police station was also aware about the incident that reportedly occurred at Anipur Railway Station on 09.10.2007. Such revelations cast more and more doubt about the authenticity on the claim of the appellant that the deceased met with the accident at Anipur railway station on 09.10.2007. 22. It may be stated that the FIR was lodged after a gap of almost one month. The informant had stated in the FIR that he could not report the matter to police in time as they remained busy in providing treatment to the injured person. 22. It may be stated that the FIR was lodged after a gap of almost one month. The informant had stated in the FIR that he could not report the matter to police in time as they remained busy in providing treatment to the injured person. However, such explanation when considered in the light of the various attending facts including the fact that the husband of the appellant/claimant sustained extremely severe injuries on 09.10.2007, it would appear clear that such explanation had hardly any element of truth. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously submits that the ticket (A1) clearly reveals that on the fateful day, the deceased travelled from Nilam Bazar to Anipur under a valid ticket. However, such a ticket, in the facts and circumstances, aforementioned, as is evident from our forgoing discussion, no way establish that the petitioner was a bonafide passenger travelling under a valid ticket from Nilam Bazar to Anipur. 24. Referring to the medical certificate at Ext. A3, it has been contended that the doctor had also recorded that the injuries which Dilip Kumar Choudhury reportedly sustained on 09.10.2007, had occasioned for his falling down from the train. But then, such medical certificate hardly advanced the cause of appellant/claimant in the proceeding aforementioned. 25. It needs to be mentioned here that the doctor, attending the victim at hospital was not the eye witness to the incident Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it can very well be presumed that the doctor had given the certificate (A3) on the asking of the appellant or the victim. 26. Such a certificate therefore hardly carry any weight more so, it was issued after a gap of 1 1/2 month from the date of the incident. Being so, the aforesaid certificate too could not establish that Dilip Kumar Choudhury, since deceased, sustained injuries in an accident that occurred at Anipur Railway Station on 09.10.2007 when late Choudhury was travelling from Nilam Bazar to Anipur under a valid ticket. 27. In this context, one may look at the observations made by the learned Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition on merit The relevant part is reproduced below:-- "1. Applicant failed to prove that on that day the deceased was travelling by train and the incident due to failing down from train. 2. No train number, no. Memo, no. 27. In this context, one may look at the observations made by the learned Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition on merit The relevant part is reproduced below:-- "1. Applicant failed to prove that on that day the deceased was travelling by train and the incident due to failing down from train. 2. No train number, no. Memo, no. GDE, no police report, no inquest report, no seizure list and no final report. 3. The applicant(now dead) stated in his application that police shifted him at Ramkrishna Nagar PHC Hospital, but no U/D Case was registered by police. 4. The incident occurred at Anipur station, but no memo issued by SM of the said station. FIR lodged by applicant's son almost after one month to Ratabari Police Station where no designation have been mentioned by receiving authority and the seal is also indistinct as such this document can hardly be relied upon. 5. All the documents submitted by the applicant are relating to medical treatment which cannot prove 'untoward incident'." 28. The aforesaid observations, when considered in the light of our forgoing discussions, one would find no infirmity in the decision, so arrived at by the learned Tribunal which is questioned in this appeal. 29. In view of above, the judgment under challenge does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed affirming the judgment under challenge. No cost.