1 fa297.13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.297 OF 2013
The Union of India,
General Manager,
Central Railway,
Mumbai CST. .......... APPELLANT
// VERSUS //
1. Mangalabai w/o. Manohar
Darunde, Age 35 yrs., Occ.Household.
2. Ku. Puja Manohar Darunde,
Aged 19 years, Occ. Education.
3. Sajan Manohar Darunde,
Aged 16 years,
Occ. Education (minor)
through her natural guardian
mother respondent no.1.
All r/o. Ambedkar Nagar,
Karanji (Bhoge), Tq. and Distt.
Wardha (M.S.). .......... RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:32:22 :::
2 fa297.13.odt
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.N.P.Lambat, Adv. for the Appellant.
Mr.S.K.Sable, Adv. for the Respondents.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J.
DATE : 4.12.2013.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Award, dt.28.9.2011 delivered by the learned Member (Judicial) of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Claim Application No.200/OA-II/RCT/NGP/2008 whereby compensation was awarded in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 6 % p.a. on the amount of compensation awarded from the date of order till realisation.
2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under :
That the Claim Application was filed by the widow, daughter and minor son of deceased Manohar Darunde.
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:32:22 :::3 fa297.13.odt Deceased Manohar was travelling by Nagpur Bhusawal Passenger train for going to Wardha from Sindi Railway Station. After Manohar boarded the train, he found that the compartment was heavily crowded with passengers.
Therefore, he was standing in the place at the doorway of the bogie. Due to sudden jerk as well as push by the co-
passengers, Manohar fell down from the running train between Warud and Seloo road stations at the spot identified as Km. No.764/11-13. Thus, Manohar became victim of an untoward incident that occurred on 27.3.2008.
The Railway Administration disputed the untoward incident and opposed the Claim Application on the ground that the deceased himself was negligent in standing at the doorway.
According to the Railways, the deceased died as a result of self-inflicted injury and hence, the liability to compensate his dependents was denied.
3. The learned Member of the Tribunal found that all the claimants were dependents of deceased Manohar Darunde and the deceased died as a result of an untoward ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:32:22 ::: 4 fa297.13.odt incident while he was travelling by Nagpur Bhusawal passenger train on 27.3.2008. It is also argued on behalf of the appellant that, at the time of preparation of spot panchanama, the deceased passenger had no journey ticket on his dead body. However, it appears that the claimants had led evidence of Nathuji Bhasme (AW-2), who deposed that the deceased had purchased railway journey ticket and also the fact that there was heavy rush in the Nagpur Bhusawal passenger train when the said train came to Sindhi Railway Station and Manohar had boarded it and was required to stand in the doorway. The learned Member observed that the evidence of Nathuji (AW-2) went unchallenged on record. The appellant tried to make capital of the statement of one Raju Darunde on the ground that one Karanji Bhoge had informed him that Manohar committed suicide. Such a statement, to my mind, is in the nature of hearsay evidence, without examination of witnesses concerned, which cannot help the Railways to escape the liability to compensate for the untoward incident. The contention that deceased Manohar was ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:32:22 ::: 5 fa297.13.odt travelling by standing in the doorway and was responsible for his own death also is not acceptable bearing in mind the fact that when Nagpur Bhusawal passenger train came on the station, it was crowded with passengers and Manohar was compelled to stand in the doorway. Under these circumstances, the learned Member rightly observed about the possibility of the railway journey ticket getting misplaced or lost in the overcrowded compartment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, when a passenger, after having purchased railway journey ticket, was required to stand in the doorway because of the compartment being overcrowded with passengers, mere fact that the journey ticket was not recovered from the dead body, under such circumstances, cannot be construed in favour of the railway administration to absolve it from liability to make payment of compensation, which was statutorily required to be paid.
4. The learned Member also made a reference to the ruling in the case of Union of India vs. Aggala Dilleswara Rao reported in AIR 2005 AP 444 in support of the ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:32:22 ::: 6 fa297.13.odt proposition that merely because the claimant was not able to produce the ticket it cannot be concluded that the said passenger was travelling without ticket. Presumption is always in favour of law abiding nature of a citizen rather than a citizen who has committed an offence. Thus, the inference that Manohar was a bona fide passenger, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is rightly arrived at by the learned Member under the circumstances and with reference to the reported rulings referred in the impugned judgment and Award.
5. The learned Member also made a reference to the ruling in the case of Rajkumari vs. Union of India reported in 1993 ACJ 846. It was observed in the said case that when a person is found dead as a result of an accident in a railway carriage, in which he was travelling, a presumption may be drawn under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act keeping in view the prohibition under Section 68 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 against boarding a train without ticket that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. It was ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:32:22 ::: 7 fa297.13.odt observed in Rajkumari's case that since ticket less travel is an illegal act and exposes such traveler to penal action, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the passenger traveling in train unless contrary is proved by the Railway Administration that the passenger was, in fact, ticket less traveler and not a bona fide passenger. Nothing had prevented the Railway Administration from checking and detecting any unauthorised person travelling without a ticket/pass or permission of Railway Administration. Thus, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case that deceased Manohar, while traveling in Nagpur Bhusawal passenger train from Railway Station, Sindhi to Wardha, had boarded the crowded compartment of the Railway train and was compelled under the circumstances to stand in the doorway in the bogie of the train, it cannot be said that he was not a bona fide passenger while he was travelling by the train. When such a person falls off accidentally either due to sudden jerks or due to movement of crowd in the compartment without pleading and proof as to exception, the Railway Administration would not be able ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:32:23 ::: 8 fa297.13.odt to escape from statutory liability to compensate dependents of such deceased person on the ground that he was not a bona fide passenger or that journey ticket was not found from his dead body. The compensation was statutorily fixed and restricted in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for death of passenger in an untoward incident - as payable under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 as prescribed in the Schedule (Compensation payable for death and injuries). The simple interest in the sum of Rs.6% p.a. awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. Hence, no ground is made out for interference in the impugned judgment and Award. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
JUDGE jaiswal ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:32:23 :::