1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 12 of 2012
Appellant : The Union of India, General Manager,
Central Railway, Mumbai CST
versus
Respondents :
1. Mainabai wd/o Bapurao Sakharam Ansare, aged about 34 years, occ: House-wife
2. Rohankumar Bapurao Anasare, aged about 2 years, being minor through his mother, respondent no. 1 Both residents of Trimurthy Nagar, Kalyan Road, Dombivli (E), District Thane.
Mr N. P. Lambat, Advocate for appellant Mr S. K. Sable, Advocate for respondents Coram : A. P. Bhangale, J Dated : 5th December 2013 Oral Judgment
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench in Claim Application No. 0022/OA-II/ ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:39 ::: 2 RCT/NGP/2009 dated 10.12.2010 awarding compensation of Rs.
4,00,000/- to the respondents, appellant Union of India has filed present appeal.
2. Respondents in their claim petition averred that Bapurao Ansare was travelling by Train No. 1387 from Bhusawal to Burhanpur. It was alleged that due to heavy rush of the passengers in the train, on arrival of the train at Raver Railway Station, due to push of the passenger Bapurao after falling from running train sustained injuries and died.
3. Respondent Railway Administration opposed the claim on the ground that it is false and denied that Bapurao was bonafide passenger travelling by train on valid journey ticket at the time of accident.
4. Learned counsel for appellant contends that ticket which was found on the dead body of Bapurao was from Dombivli to Bhusawal.
Thus, no ticket was purchased by Bapurao for onward journey from Bhusawal to Burhanpur. Learned counsel thus contends that the claim could not have been allowed on the basis of false statement.
5. Learned counsel for respondent contends that Mainabai was examined before the Tribunal and she stated on oath that Bapurao had purchased ticket at Bhusawal Railway Station for Burhanpur in presence of one Laxman Pawar. However, that ticket was lost while Bapurao fell down from running train and ticket upto Bhusawal was only found.
6. It appears that said Laxman Pawar was not examined before ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:39 ::: 3 the Tribunal. He was not even summoned by Tribunal. Be that as it may, it is found from record that witness Mainabai who appears to have sworn affidavit by way of examination-in-chief was scribed in English language and below that affidavit, she had put her thumb impression. She appears to have been represented by two advocates. It is not mentioned whether her right thumb impression was put in their presence and whether they read over and explained the contents of affidavit to Mainabai in vernacular.
Secondly, at the end of cross-examination, the Member (Judicial) appears to have written "R.O. E. A." and below that there is thumb impression of Mainabai. Learned counsel for appellant states that abbreviation "R.O.E.A." stands for endorsement "read over and explained to the applicant". Post-mortem report shows that death was accidental one and occurred due to fall from running train. Communication at exhibit A-16 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager, Bhusawal shows that Bapurao was travelling with a ticket from Dombvli to Bhusawal, but when the train arrived at Bhusawal railway station, he was asleep and awoke before Duwsarkheda Railway Station on way to Khandwa and when the train slowed down, he tried to get down and fell from running train. It was thus claimed that under the circumstances passenger Bapurao died due to his own negligence.
7. I feel that when a situation like the one as in present case arises, it is the duty of the Tribunal to see that necessary witnesses are ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:39 ::: 4 summoned in the interest of best evidence to be on record, if essential for just decision of the case even as court witnesses; witnesses cited by parties but not examined by them may be summoned and examined in the interest of justice. Hence, without observing anything on merits, this Court feels that the matter needs to be remitted back to the Railway Claims Tribunal for adjudication afresh to have just decision in the case.
8. In the result, impugned judgment and award is set aside.
Matter is remitted back to the Railway Claims Tribunal with direction to the Tribunal to allow the parties to adduce additional oral and documentary evidence, if any, and then to decide the claim on merits in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 13th January 2014 at 11.30 am. The Tribunal shall decide the claim petition as expeditiously as possible. Appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
A. P. BHANGALE, J joshi ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:39 :::