Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 399 (GAU)

Swaraswati Haloi v. Union Of India

2020-03-17

KALYAN RAI SURANA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. S. Islam, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. B. Sarma, the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an appeal under Section 25 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the order and award dated 09.07.2018, passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in Claim Application No. OAIIu/GHY/2015/0075, thereby dismissing the claim of the appellants for compensation arising out of death of Late Barun Haloi, the predecessor- in- interest of the appellants in allegedly Railway untoward incident that had occurred on 24.04.2014. 3. As per the claim petition, on 24.04.2018, Barun Haloi, who was the husband of the appellant No.1 and the father of the appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4 along with one Sanjit Das and his two sons (appellant nos. 2 and 3) had boarded the Down Sifung passenger train from Guwahati. It is projected that the deceased after coming out from the toilet, was washing his hands and face by standing in front of the wash- basin and that due to heavy jerking, he slipped and fell from the said train at Ghagrapar Railway Station and he was run over by the 12424 Up Rajdhani Express and he died having suffered grievous head and multiple other injuries. It was projected that the railway ticket was lost in the incident. 4. The respondent had contested the claim by filing written statement and they had denied any liability arising out of the said accident. It was claimed that the train was stationary and that the deceased had died because of his own criminal act of waking through railway track. 5. In support of their stand, the appellants had filed the following documents, viz., certified copy of Memo (Exbt.A-1); certified copy of post mortem report (Exbt.A-2); certified copy of inquest report (Exbt.A-3); and certified copy of final report (Exbt.A-4). The order and award discloses that the respondent had filed the following documents, viz., DRM report along with photocopy of the Memo, true copy of Station Masters diary, photocopy of inquest report, final report and photo of deceased, etc. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the victim was a bona fide passenger? 2. Whether the victim had died in an untoward incident? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation? If so, to what sum? 4. Relief & costs? 6. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the victim was a bona fide passenger? 2. Whether the victim had died in an untoward incident? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation? If so, to what sum? 4. Relief & costs? 6. In support of the claim, the appellants had examined 3 (three) witnesses, viz. (1) the appellant, Sarswati Haloi (AW-1), (2) Jyotish Haloi (AW-2) and (3) Sanjit Das (AW- 3). It may be mentioned herein that Hiteswar Haloi, the appellant No.2 had also submitted his evidence-on-affidavit as AW-2, but there is no record of his cross-examination and as per order dated 20.03.2018, it has been recorded that the counsel for the appellants had stated that no further evidence is required and as such the oral evidence of the appellants evidence was closed. Accordingly, the evidence of the said witness was not considered by the learned Tribunal. The following documents were exhibited by the appellants, (1) Certified copy of FIR and ejahar of Rangia GRPS UD Case No.31/2014 (Exbt-1), (2) Certified copy of Postmortem Report (Exbt-2), (3) Certified copy of Inquest Report dated 24.04.2014 (Exbt-3), (4) Certified copy of Final Report dated 30.06.2014 (Exbt-4). 7. All the four issues were taken up together. The learned Tribunal relied on the DRM Report and formed an opinion that the deceased had got down at the other side of the platform and was carelessly trying to cross the railway track when the incoming Rajdhani Express knocked him down and he got run over by the said train. The learned Tribunal disbelieved that the deceased fell down from the platform of a train by holding that one cannot fall down from a stationary train and secondly, the gap between the two lines was big enough for any passenger to fall on the other track beyond the stationary train unless the victim himself trespasses on the other track. Hence, it was held that the accident was a result of willful negligent act of the deceased which is covered under self inflicted injury as per section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The learned trial Court disbelieved the evidence of AW-3, because after the accident, he did not go to the spot, went home and did not tell anyone, which was found to be very suspicious by the leaned Tribunal. The learned trial Court disbelieved the evidence of AW-3, because after the accident, he did not go to the spot, went home and did not tell anyone, which was found to be very suspicious by the leaned Tribunal. Hence, the issues were decided against the appellants and the claim petition was dismissed. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants has questioned the reliance of the learned Tribunal on the DRM Report on the ground that no witness was examined to prove the same. It is further submitted that the absence of railway ticket is not fatal. In this regard, reliance is placed on the cases of Kandarpa Kr. Das vs. Union of India 2018 (4) GLT 212: (2019) 3 GLR 649, Nrihanya Devi vs. Union of India 1999 (3) GLT 216, Union of India vs Nellamma, 2009 Legal Eagle 185 and Joji C. John vs. Union of India 2001 Legal Eagle 527. It is also submitted that as there was evidence that the deceased was inside the train, in the absence of any evidence from the respondents, there is no material to conclude that the death of the deceased was because of a negligent act on part of the deceased or that the injury was self inflicted one. It is submitted that a person is inside the train and he falls down for any reason from the train, it covered both situations where the passenger trying to get down from a train falls down and also where were boarding the train, the passenger falls down which leads to his death. In this regard, reliance is placed on the case of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 527 . The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that meanwhile by a notification dated 22.12.2016 bearing no. G.S.R. 1165 (E) published in the Gazette of India, the compensation payable under Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 was enhanced from Rs.4 lakh to Rs.8 lakh. Accordingly, by relying on the case of Union of India vs Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 : 2018 Legal Eagle 387 to claim compensation at the revised rate. 9. G.S.R. 1165 (E) published in the Gazette of India, the compensation payable under Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 was enhanced from Rs.4 lakh to Rs.8 lakh. Accordingly, by relying on the case of Union of India vs Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 : 2018 Legal Eagle 387 to claim compensation at the revised rate. 9. It is the pleaded case of the appellants in paragraph 6 of the claim petition which is as follows: 'That on 24-4-2014 the deceased Barun Haloi got in the Sifung Passenger Train (Down) from Guwahati Railway Station to Nalbari while the said train reached at Ghagrapar Railway station, the victim namely Barun Haloi slipped from the train at the Ghagrapar Railway station due to sudden and heavy jerking of the said train and he was run over by the 12424 UP Rajdhani Express and thus sustained grievous head injury and other multiple injuries to his person.' 10. As per the evidence-on-affidavit of AW-1, the Sifung Passenger Train had reached Ghagrapar Railway Station and the deceased entered the toilet and after few minutes he came out and was washing his hand and face in front of the basin and due to sudden and heavy jerking, the deceased fell out of the running train at Ghagrapar Railway Station and he was run over by the Rajdhani Express Train. The said AW-1 in her cross-examination had stated that the deceased was run over by Rajdhani Express at Ghagrapar when the deceased get down from the Sifung Passenger Train. The AW-2, Jyotish Haloi also made a similar statement in his evidence-on-affidavit that due to heavy jerking, the deceased slipped from the at Ghagrapar Railway Station and on his information to the TTE, the train was stopped. In his cross-examination, the AW-2 has stated that he did not know the actual cause of death of his deceased father. The AW-3, Sanjit Das, also stated that the deceased slipped from the running train at Ghagrapar Railway Station due to sudden and heavy jerking of the offending train and he was run over by the Rajdhani Express. In his cross-examination, the AW-3 had stated that as the train was approaching the station, the victim fell down from the other side of the coach and not on the platform side at Ghagrapar Railway Station. In his cross-examination, the AW-3 had stated that as the train was approaching the station, the victim fell down from the other side of the coach and not on the platform side at Ghagrapar Railway Station. He also stated that the train stopped at Ghagrapar Station and there were many passenger who went to the spot and that he did not go the spot, but saw the victims body lying. He did not see the victims body cut into pieces but saw limbs of the deceaseds body twisted and apparently broken. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen the accident and deposed falsely. 11. From the above evidence of the three witnesses, there appears to be some contradiction as to the place of occurrence. As per AW-1, the accident took place at Ghagrapar Railway Station, but as per AW-2 and AW-3, the deceased slipped from a running train at Ghagrapar Railway Station. As per the cross-examination of AW-3, the victim fell out from the train when the train was approaching the station. As per the written memo (pp.31- 32 of the memo of appeal), the dead body was lying outside the track in the station yard. As per Inquest Report (pp.33-36 of the memo of appeal), the dead body was lying at the yard of Ghagrapar Railway Station. As per the Final Report (pp.37-40 of the memo of appeal), the deceased died at Ghagrapar Railway Station and he had fallen down from the Sifung Passenger Train and knocked down by the Up Rajdhani Express at the time of crossing. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently submitted that as per the Final Report (Exbt.4), the deceased have fallen down from the Sifung Passenger Train and was knocked down by Up Rajdhani Express at the time of crossing. He has submitted that if a train was given crossing, it is a standard operation procedure that the train would be standing at the platform while giving crossing to the Rajdhani Express. It is submitted that under such circumstances, there would be no sudden and heavy jerking towards the standing train which would cause passenger to slip down on to another track where he could be hit by a running train. It is submitted that under such circumstances, there would be no sudden and heavy jerking towards the standing train which would cause passenger to slip down on to another track where he could be hit by a running train. He has submitted that the only way such an accident can happen is when a passenger gets down from the train at the wrong side (opposite the platform side) and was unauthorizedly trespassing on the other railway track which was given clearance for the Rajdhani Express to cross over. 13. In light of such submission, the Court is of the considered opinion that the evidence of AW-2 and AW-3 to the extent that the deceased had slipped from the train while the train was approaching Ghagrapar Railway Station and he was run over by Rajdhani Express is not believable, because if the Sifung Express was in motion, the Rajdhani Express would not have been given crossing. The evidence of all the 3 (three) AWs cannot be believed to the extent that the deceased would slip out of the train with heavy jerking so as to fall on the second track and get run over by another train. Hence, there appears to be no infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that the gap between two lines was big enough for any passenger to fall on the other line. Hence, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal to the effect that the run over of the deceased by other train would be covered by willful negligent act and covered under self inflicted injury as per section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that the victim/ deceased had got down at the other side of the platform and was carelessly crossing the other railway line is held to be plausible and acceptable. Hence, no interference is called for in this appeal. 14. In view of the aforesaid finding that the accidental death of the deceased is attributable to self inflicted injury as per section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, the presence or absence of a valid railway ticket is of no consequence. Hence, no interference is called for in this appeal. 14. In view of the aforesaid finding that the accidental death of the deceased is attributable to self inflicted injury as per section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, the presence or absence of a valid railway ticket is of no consequence. Moreover, as per the evidence of AW-2 and AW-3, they purportedly saw the accident, got the train stopped and saw the dead body after being run over by other train and the AW-2, being the son immediately went towards the dead body, the absence of a valid travel ticket is quite conspicuous and its loss remains unexplained because as per the evidence of AW-1, the train reached the station and the deceased went to bathroom and after coming out, he was washing his hands and face at the time when he slipped out of the train. The said situation leads to a presumption that the railway ticket was definitely was not being held by the deceased in his hands as he was washing his hands and face and, as such, there is no way that only the ticket would be lost or misplaced at the time of the accident. Hence, no interference is called for in respect of the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that in the absence of journey ticket, the deceased was a bonafide passenger could not be established. Hence, the cases of Kandarpa Kr. Das (supra), Nrihanya Devi (supra), Nellamma (supra) and Joji C. John (supra) has no application in this case. 15. In view of the above discussion, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. In view of the nature of finding recorded above, there is no reason to discuss the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the appellants. 16. The parties are left to bear their own cost. 17. The records of the learned Railway Claims Tribunal be returned back.