Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 331 (ORI)

Union of India v. Rekha Pradhan

2019-04-18

BISWANATH RATH

body2019
JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This F.A.O involves a challenge to the judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in O.A. No.79 of 2006. 2. Short background involved in the case is that on 13.09.2001 the claimant along with her deceased son and two other relatives were travelling from Bargarh Road to Badmal as bona fide passengers in 333 UP Bilashpur-Kantabanji passenger Train. On the same day, the Train reached at Bolangir Railway Station at 5.50 P.M. The train was detained at Platform No.II of Bolangir Station as Rayagada-Sambalpur DN Express Train No.8302 was scheduled to be arrived there. The deceased along with his relative came to platform No.1 through foot over bridge for the purpose of taking Tiffin. After taking Tiffin, while they were returning back to Platform No.II on the foot over bridge, taking the advantage of darkness, two unknown miscreants suddenly appeared and attacked Mamata Bhoi and tried to snatch golden chain on her neck forcibly. The deceased tried to rescue his relative Mamata Bhoi from the clutches of the miscreants and there was a tussle between them on the Platform No.I. It is, at this point of time, the miscreants pushed the deceased towards extreme edge of the Platform no.I. Unfortunately the deceased fell down on the track due to violent attack and at that time Rayagada-Sambalpur Express Train arrived and ran over the deceased and the deceased succumbed to the injury at the spot. 3. On the premises of the death of the deceased the claimant filed the application for claim in terms of the Railways Act. The Respondent filing written statement denied the averments and also denied on the premises that there involve no untoward incident. It is the specific case of the appellant-respondent therein that the deceased was crossing the railway track from Platform No.I to Platform No.II of Bolangir Railway Station instead of going through the foot over bridge and invited the accident. Shri Mishra, thus contended that such incident cannot come within the purview of untoward incident and therefore, the respondent therein claimed that the claimants are not entitled to the benefit as claimed. 4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues : "ISSUES (I) Whether the deceased was pushed by miscreants on Platform of Bolangir Station and came under the wheels of the train and run over? 4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues : "ISSUES (I) Whether the deceased was pushed by miscreants on Platform of Bolangir Station and came under the wheels of the train and run over? (II) Whether the respondent proves that the deceased was run over while crossing the railway line? (III) Whether delay in filing the O.A. is condoned? (IV) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger? (V) What order? What relief?" 5. To satisfy their case the claimants therein examined several witnesses marked as A.W.1 and A.W.2 and also exhibited some witnesses marked as Ext.A/1 to Ext.A/7 whereas the appellant respondent therein examined R.W.1 and R.W.2 but has not exhibited any document. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal giving finding involving all the issues in favour of the appellant and after observing that the case involves untoward incident involving the Railway Accident and while allowing the claim directed the respondent-appellant to pay Rs.4,00,000/- to the claimant along with interest 6% per annum from 14.03.2013. 7. Challenging this judgment of the Tribunal this appeal has been filed. 8. Advancing his argument learned counsel for the appellant referring to the grounds taken therein and further referring to the evidence at the instance of the Railway contended that the case involved cannot be construed to be involving the untoward accident. Under the circumstance and from the materials available through the evidence, learned counsel for the appellant prayed this Court for interfering in the impugned order and setting aside the same. 9. Taking this Court to the pleadings in the claim application and the evidence from the side of claimants oral as well as materials, Miss Mohapatra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the claimant has been able to establish a clear case of untoward incident involving the train involved herein. Under the circumstance, for the findings and for the observation of the trial court, Miss Mohapatra, learned counsel for the respondent requested this Court for dismissal of the appeal for having no merit. 10. Under the circumstance, for the findings and for the observation of the trial court, Miss Mohapatra, learned counsel for the respondent requested this Court for dismissal of the appeal for having no merit. 10. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, going through averments made in the claim application, as the determination of the issues involved has been made much relying on the evidence of the parties and going through the evidence of the respondent the appellant herein, this Court finds, the Railway Claims Tribunal has examined two witnesses namely one Sri Sutugan Surin working as the Chief Loco Inspector under Sr.DME/SBP involving Train No.8302(RGDA-SBP Exp.) and Sri Antaryami Nayak working as M/E Guard under Sr.DOM/Sambalpur in Train No.8302 Rayagada-Sambalpur Express Train on dated 13.09.2001 11. It is, at this stage of the matter, considering the evidence from the side of the respondent herein-the claimant therein this Court finds, Smt. Rekha Pradhan the mother of the deceased has the clear statement that she along with deceased son and other relatives were all travelling in Bilashpur-Kantabanji Passenger Train from Bargarh Road to Badmal Railway Station by purchasing four numbers of Railway Tickets bearing Sl.no.00482, 00483, 00484 & 00485. It is, at this stage of the matter, finding that the merit of the claim hinges on the evidence gathered in the process, this Court on score of oral evidence and material evidence observes, evidence rather supports the case of the respondent herein and there is right consideration of the issue by the Railway Claims Tribunal. In such view of the matter, this Court finds no force in the submission of the Railway Counsel and accordingly, while finding no scope for interfering in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, directs the Tribunal to release the compensation in favour of the claimant following the provision in the Railway Act, 1981 and in terms of the guideline of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India versus Rina Devi involving Civil Appeal No.4945 of 2018 as reported in 2018 (3) TAC 26 within a period of two months, failure of which, the entitlement shall carry 8% interest per annum. 12. Accordingly, this F.A.O. stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to cost.