Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 7 (MP)

Manisha Bai v. Union of India

2016-01-04

SANJAY YADAV

body2016
ORDER 1. Since respondents are represented, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally. 2. This appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the judgment dated 30.4.2015 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench (hereafter shall be referred to as “Tribunal”). In Claim Case No.OA/IIu/2012/0246. 3. Appellants herein who were claimants before the Tribunal, filed the Claim Petition seeking compensation in lieu of death of one Jagdish, who as per the contentions while travelling on 19.8.2008 in Train No.491 Ratlam-Bhopal Passenter from Maksi to Akodia, accidentally fell down from the train near Kanjar Dera at village Makhavad. Having sustained grievous injuries rushed to City Hospital by Goods Train. Whereafter he was referred to Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal where he succumbed to the injuries on 22.8.2008. It was the contention that said Jagdish was travelling with a valid ticket and was a bona fide passenger and since death has occurred because of falling from running train, they are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4. Respondent Railways denied the claim. It denied the contention that deceased was bona fide passenger and was travelling in Ratlam-Bhopal Passenger Train on 19.8.2008. It was stated that no ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased. It was also stated that even if it is to be presumed that the deceased was travelling in a passenger train, the death occurred due to his own negligence being seated near open door of the Couch and was himself responsible for the said accident. 5. The Claims Tribunal on the basis of claim and the denial thereof framed the following five issues : 1) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train at the time of occurrence of the alleged untoward incident ? 2) Whether the death of the deceased was due to an untoward incident as defined under section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 ? 3) Whether the respondent Railway is protected under section 124A of the Railways Act and is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants? 4) Whether the applicants are the sole dependents of the deceased to claim/receive the compensation if any, granted ? Who else are the dependents. 5) Relief ? 6. 3) Whether the respondent Railway is protected under section 124A of the Railways Act and is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants? 4) Whether the applicants are the sole dependents of the deceased to claim/receive the compensation if any, granted ? Who else are the dependents. 5) Relief ? 6. In order to establish the claim, claimants relied upon 11 documents, exhibited as Annexure A-1 to A-11 and examined one Smt. Manisha Bai. Whereas the respondents relied upon the Divisional Railway Manager's report Annexure R-1; however, did not lead any oral evidence. 7. The Tribunal while dwelling on issue No.1, i.e., “whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train at the time of occurrence of the alleged untoward incident”, answered the issue in favour of the claimant that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died due to untoward incident due to falling from train. 8. However, while dwelling on issues No.2 and 3 as to whether the death of the deceased was due to an untoward incident and whether respondent Railways is protected under section 124A of the Railways Act and is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants, the Tribunal answered the issue against the claimants on finding that for want of identity of the deceased being Jagdish the Claimants were non suited. The Tribunal found : “The Station Diary of Shujalpur filed at page-9, item No.11- that a person in injured condition escorted by a Key-man Girdhari Ll is being sent in the Break-Van of NEB Goods Train for arranging treatment at Civil Hospital Shujalpur establishes that the railway staff found the deceased lying near the track with injuries has been sent by a goods train to Shujalpur for treatment. The investigation official who has conducted the naksha panchayatnama has clearly recorded the opinion of the Panch in regard to the death of the deceased was on account of fall from Ratlam-Bhopal Passenger on the material date draws adverse inference. It is pertinent to mention here that from the perusal of the naksha panchayatnama, Merg Inimation registered by GRP Thana Akodia, GRP/Ko-hi-Fiza, Bhopal, application for Post-Mortem of the dead body, Post-Mortem Report, Case Diary of GRP/Ko-hi-Fiza and Akodia as well shows the name of the deceased as Prahlad and not Jagdish. It is pertinent to mention here that from the perusal of the naksha panchayatnama, Merg Inimation registered by GRP Thana Akodia, GRP/Ko-hi-Fiza, Bhopal, application for Post-Mortem of the dead body, Post-Mortem Report, Case Diary of GRP/Ko-hi-Fiza and Akodia as well shows the name of the deceased as Prahlad and not Jagdish. Applicant has not filed neither the death certificate of the deceased nor the Shinakhti nama of the deceased. Respondent railway in its DRM Report has stated that the investigation Report of GRP/Akodia revealed that recovery of voter ID in the name of Prahlad from the person of the deceased led to confusion in identifying the deceased as Prahlad in place of Jagdish s/o Ramji. Verification certificate dated 11.2.2011 issued by GRP Thana Akodia in support of the above contention filed along with DRM Report at Page No.21- showing with photo identify of Prahalad as alive and the deceased as Jagdish. An affidavit of Prahalad duly notarised on 27.8.2008 to the fact that the deceased Jagdish Chandra s/o Ramji was hisyounger brother died in an untoward incident occurred on 19.8.2008 while undergoing treatment at Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal is on record. The deponent has further stated that the police have wrongly interpreted the identification which was in the name of Prahlad. Now the question before me is whether the applicants are able to prove the correct identification of the deceased. (a) I have minutely perused the naksha panchayatnama prepared by the GRP/Ko-hiFiza/Bhopal wherein it is shown the name of the deceased as Prahlad and not Jagdish aged 45 years. Furthermore, even in the Voter ID the name of the deceased is mentioned as Prahlad there is no record that the same was recovered from the physical possession of the deceased. It is pertinent to mention here that even one of the panch who participated in the preparation of naksha panchayatnama has signed as Jagdish aged 40 years. This squarely shows that there is no evidence on file to the effect that what was the actual name of the deceased. Father of both Prahlad and Jagdish is the same. The actual person who has signed as Jagdish in the panchnama, proves that Jagdish is probably alive.” 9. This squarely shows that there is no evidence on file to the effect that what was the actual name of the deceased. Father of both Prahlad and Jagdish is the same. The actual person who has signed as Jagdish in the panchnama, proves that Jagdish is probably alive.” 9. The aforesaid finding which are based on cogent material documents on record when is tested on the basis of these documents, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the claimants have preferred a false claim, cannot be faulted with. The appellants have failed to bring any material evidence on record to dislodge the finding arrived at by the Tribunal and to establish that the same suffers from vice of perversity. It being the primary burden of the claimants to have established that the deceased was Jagdish but claimants having failed to establish the same, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal which in turn is based on material evidence on record, cannot be faulted with. 10. Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed.