Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 241 (JHR)

Dhaneshwari Devi v. Union Of India

2019-01-23

S.N.PATHAK

body2019
JUDGMENT S N Pathak, J. - Heard the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 12.08.2013, passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in case No. OA (IIU)/ RNC/ 2007/ 0008, in Claim Case filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. 3. The facts of the case in short is that on 16.05.2006, the deceased Telo Pandit boarded Train No. 302DN at Koderma for going to Herodih, in which there was heavy rush and as a result of which, the deceased accidently fell down from the running train which resulted in his death. Upon getting information regarding death of Telo Pandit, his relative, Ramu Pandit gave his written statement on 17.05.2006 before the police and on the basis of his statement an unnatural death case being Koderma G.R.P.S. U.D. Case No. 09/06 was registered and the police after due enquiry and investigation, have submitted the final report stating that it is a case of accidental death on account of fall from the alleged moving train. The wife and brother-in-law of the deceased namely, Dhaneshwari Devi and Ramu Pandit respectively have supported this fact on affidavit before the learned Tribunal. It is the specific case of the appellant that the deceased was a bonafide passenger having valid ticket for travelling from Koderma to Herodih and this fact has also been corroborated by the affidavit filed by the wife and brother of the deceased. However, the said train ticket was lost in this untoward incident as the deceased was handled at various places by different agencies. 4. The parties appeared before the Tribunal and were heard. After examining the witnesses and perusing the evidences on record, the learned Tribunal framed the followings issues:- I) Whether Telo Pandit was a bonafide passenger on 16.05.2006? II) Whether any untoward incident as defined in Section 123 of the Railway Act, 1989 has occurred with the victim? III) Whether the Appellant is entitled to claim any relief? 5. The Tribunal was of the finding that as per the enquiry report marked as Ext. R/2, there was no report of occurrence of any untoward incident at Koderma and Herodih rather, there was a report regarding a dead body lying at DN. Railway Track at KJ. 388/14 between KQR-HRE Railway Station. Neither any passenger nor any staff has apprised for the said incident. R/2, there was no report of occurrence of any untoward incident at Koderma and Herodih rather, there was a report regarding a dead body lying at DN. Railway Track at KJ. 388/14 between KQR-HRE Railway Station. Neither any passenger nor any staff has apprised for the said incident. In support of this contention, Railways have filed report regarding untoward incident stating therein that no such incident was recorded in the station diary of 16.05.2006. The inquest report (Ext. R/9) indicates that the death was due to being hit by some unknown train and also there was contradiction between the statements of the deceased''s wife regarding boarding of the train. As such, the case of the appellant was disbelieved by the Tribunal and it was held that the appellant is not entitled for any compensation. 6. The appellant has assailed the impugned Award on the following grounds:- a) The impugned order has been passed only on the basis of conjectures and surmises for which no cogent evidence has been adduced by the respondent-authorities and as such, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. b) The learned Tribunal has erred in coming to its finding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger of 302DN. Passenger Train though the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the said Train having purchased the valid Ticket for travelling from Koderma to Herodih. c) Learned Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim of compensation of the appellant though the Railway Authorities were in full picture of the said incident and when deceased fell down from the running train, his body was sent for post mortem with the help of Railway Authorities. d) The learned Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim of the appellant though the police after due investigation submitted the final report in Koderma U.D. Case No. 9 of 2006, in which it was found that the death of the deceased occurred as a result of accidently falling down from the train. e) The learned Tribunal failed to consider that the respondentRailway had not adduced any oral evidence or witnesses to support their case and as such, the respondent-Railway had admitted the case of the appellant as true. f) The learned Tribunal has rejected the claim of the appellant though describes untoward incident as ''accidental falling of passengers from a train carrying passengers''. f) The learned Tribunal has rejected the claim of the appellant though describes untoward incident as ''accidental falling of passengers from a train carrying passengers''. g) Learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that this Act is a beneficial legislation which was enacted with a view to help the families of victims who die in an untoward incident and as such, rejecting the claim of the appellant merely on technical ground is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. In support of his case, Mrs. Chaitali Ch. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant relies on Exts. R/2, R/3, R/4, R/5, R/7, R/9 and Fardbayan of Ram Pandit (R/10). Learned counsel further argues that Ext. R/14 on which Railway is basing its claim was prepared on 30.01.2009 which talks of no untoward incident whereas all other exhibits which were prepared in 2008 itself clearly talks of accidental fall meaning thereby the incident took place as the deceased fell down from the train. Learned counsel emphatically argues that the death is admitted. It is also admitted that incident took place because of the fall from the train and only because the deceased was not having a valid ticket as nothing was recovered from his possession, it cannot be said that it is not a case of untoward incident as describe in Section 123 (C)(2) of the Railway Claims Act and the case falls within the ambit of Section 124 of the Railway Claims Act and as such, the appellant is entitled for compensation to tune of Rs.8,00,000/- as per notification dated 22.12.2016 made effective from 01.01.2017 and as such, a direction be given to the Railway Claim Tribunal for calculation of the amount of compensation as per the said notification. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Railway opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that as no report was ever received either from the Driver or from the Guard of the Train in question or from the passengers of the said Train regarding any untoward incident, the claim of the appellant is not justified in the eyes of law. Justifying the impugned order, learned counsel submits that as the deceased was not a bonafide passenger in view of the fact that no ticket was ever produced by the appellant or recovered from the possession of the deceased and further no witness was examined by the appellant on that point. Further in view of the fact that exhibits clearly reveals that it was not a case of untoward incident, the appellant is not entitled for a single farthing by way of compensation. 9. Having heard the parties and from perusal of the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal and also from perusal of lower Court records, it appears that the reliance of the learned Tribunal on Exts. 2, 5, 7 and 15 is not acceptable as what has been held in Ext.-5 has not been revealed in the Award and in the judgment also, learned Tribunal has not taken into account the fact that Ext. R/15, which talks of no untoward incident was prepared in the year 2009 on 30.01.2009 whereas, all other exhibits were prepared in the year 2008 and which talk of accidental fall. The similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi,2018 2 JBCJ 478 (SC), in which the Hon''ble Apex Court considering the said aspect in para 17.4 has held that:- "17.4 We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the Railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bonafide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bonafide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly." The Hon''ble Apex Court has held that initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly." The Hon''ble Apex Court has held that initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. The attending circumstances clearly reveals that the death occurred due to fall from the train and it was an accidental fall from the train and death is admitted. Only because there was no valid tickets and the dead body was found lying on the track, the Railway cannot deny the claim of compensation. 10. This Court is also of the view that in view of the observations made by the Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Rina Devi (supra), the appellant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakh only) from the date of incident. As such, let the said amount be paid to the appellant within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Let it be made clear that in case the Railways fail to comply the order passed by this Court, they are liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum to the appellant from the date of the accident till the realization. 11. Office is directed to return the lower Court records to the Court below at the earliest. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant Appeal is hereby disposed of. 13. As a sequel to the disposal of the present Appeal, pending I.As. if any, also stand dispose of.