Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 462 (JHR)

Nilkanth Mandal v. Union of India

2020-03-06

KAILASH PRASAD DEO

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mrs. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha and learned counsel for the Union of India (Railways), Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha. 2. Three claim applications bearing Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/2016/0004, Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/2016/0003 and Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/2016/0008 have been preferred by the same claimants separately for death of three persons, which have been amalgamated by the learned Tribunal and all the claim applications have been dismissed on the ground that the family chose the course of walking through the railway track instead of crossing by Foot Bridge and as such, even though they have tickets, claimants are not entitled for any compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the alleged date of occurrence is 07.12.2015 when deceased Tilak Dhari Mandal, his wife Prem Lata Devi and one minor daughter namely Niti Kumari after purchasing two adult tickets boarded the Train No. 53049 UP Howrah-Mokama Passenger, but because of heavy rush, they fell down and died in accident. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the final report, which has been brought on record as Annexure-3, at page-30, it has been categorically stated that the passengers died because of fall from Train No. 53049 UP Howrah-Mokama Passenger. As such, the claim application ought not to be dismissed by the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the Railway has relied upon the counter affidavit submitted by the Railway today and has submitted that the deceased were crossing the track while they were hit by train and died thereof, as such, the same does not come under untoward incident as defined under Section 123 of the Railway Amendment Act, 1994 and the Tribunal has rightly repudiated the claim. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of materials available on record, it appears that the Tribunal has repudiated the claim only on the basis of DRM’s report that the deceased were crossing the railway track and thus met with an accident. From perusal of the DRM's Report, it appears that during local inquiry, I.O. ascertained that the death of the deceased was due to fall down from Train No. 53049 UP Howrah-Mokama Passenger and in the meantime run over by other running train, caused death on the spot. It appears that one Sub-Inspector R.P.F. Mr. From perusal of the DRM's Report, it appears that during local inquiry, I.O. ascertained that the death of the deceased was due to fall down from Train No. 53049 UP Howrah-Mokama Passenger and in the meantime run over by other running train, caused death on the spot. It appears that one Sub-Inspector R.P.F. Mr. Manoj Kumar could learn that the said deceased were run away by Train No. 13020 DN during crossing of the railway track which is prohibited as per Railway Act. 7. From perusal of the Inquiry Report, which has been brought as Annexure-3, at page-30, it appears that police has also submitted report that all the three deceased died because of railway accident as they have fallen down from Train No. 53049 UP Howrah-Mokama Passenger. Apart from this, it is apparent that Sankarpur Railway Station has no Foot Over Bridge at the relevant time of accident. The Railway has not brought on record to supplement that the Foot Bridge was constructed over Platform No. 1 and Platform No. 2. As such, the ground taken by the Railway Tribunal is non est in the eyes of law in absence of any cogent evidence brought by the Railway regarding existence of Foot Over Bridge. The passengers are bonafide as they had tickets and they were run over by the train as per DRM’s report as well as police report at Annexure-3 and the Tribunal has also accepted them to be bonafide passengers. 8. From perusal of impugned Award, it appears that there is contrary report of DRM. In the report, which has been brought on record as Annexure-3 at page-30, it is apparent that even the DRM admits that the deceased have fallen from the train. No contrary evidence has been brought on record. 9. From perusal of the final report at page no. 71 of the LCR, it appears that the deceased were standing near the gate after boarding Train No. 53049 UP Howrah-Mokama Passenger and fell down as soon as the train started. From perusal of DRM’s report, which is at page no. 60 of the LCR, it appears that during local inquiry, the I.O. ascertained that the death of deceased is due to fall from Train No. 53049 UP Howrah-Mokama Passenger, in the meantime they were run over from other running train causing death on the spot. 10. From perusal of DRM’s report, which is at page no. 60 of the LCR, it appears that during local inquiry, the I.O. ascertained that the death of deceased is due to fall from Train No. 53049 UP Howrah-Mokama Passenger, in the meantime they were run over from other running train causing death on the spot. 10. In view of such evidence brought on record, this Court is inclined to allow this miscellaneous appeal as the deceased were bonafide passengers, which was also found by learned Tribunal, but contrary evidence has been relied upon by learned Tribunal without any substance in it. The DRM’s report suggest that the passengers have boarded the train and thereafter they have fallen down. 11. Under the aforesaid circumstances, they are considered to be bonafide passengers and are entitled for compensation. Accordingly, the impugned judgment passed by learned Tribunal is set aside. Accordingly, the miscellaneous appeal is allowed. 12. Railway is directed to pay and indemnify the compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- each claimants in all the claim applications within a period of 90 days from today. 13. Let LCR be sent down forthwith.