1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 440 of 2014
Appellant : Union of India, through its General Manager,
through its General Manager, South Central
Railway, Secunderabad (AP)
Versus
Respondent: Smt Ganga Sagar wife of late Sainath Maroti
Waghmare, aged about 26 years, Occ: Housewife,
resident of Atkur Village, Dharmabad, District
Nanded
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P. S. Lambat, Advocate for appellant Shri Shashikant b. Bangde, Advocate for respondent Coram : S. B. Shukre, J Dated : 13th November 2017 Oral Judgment
1. This appeal challenges legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 22nd September 2006 passed by the Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Claim Application No. 135/OA-II/RCT/NGP/2004 whereby compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- has been granted to the claimant, widow of deceased Sainath Maruti Waghmare on account of untimely death of Sainath in an untoward incident as contemplated under Section 123 (c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:25:26 ::: 2
2. The untoward incident in the nature of accidental falling of deceased Sainath from running train, Passenger Train-557 occurred in the morning of 22.1.2004. Sainath was travelling from Karkheli to Shivangaon and the accident occurred while the train was still at Karkheli Railway Station. After falling off the train, the deceased came under the wheels of the train and his head got severred. His dead body was recovered from railway track at the platform of Karkheli Railway Station. Respondent being dependent upon the deceased, filed a petition claiming compensation for the death of her husband.
3. The claim was allowed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, as stated earlier.
4. Shri Lambat, learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the statutory report prepared under rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as no railway ticket was recovered from his dead body and it was wrongly mentioned in the inquest report by the PSI, Railway Police, Purna. He submits that the guard who first inspected the dead body had found Rs. 800/- cash as present on the person of the deceased which he removed from the dead body and handed it over to the personnel of railway police. He further ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:25:26 ::: 3 submits that the accident had occurred not while the deceased was on the train, but when, probably, the deceased tried to catch a running train in an illegal manner. So, according to him, viewed in any way, the appllant would not be liable to pay compensation in the present case.
5. This is all disagreed to by learned counsel for the respondent. He submits that the Tribunal has rightly granted compensation in the present case.
6. Upon cosideration of rival arguments and record of the case, the following points arise for my determination :
(1) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger ? (2) Whether the deceased had died in an untoward incident ?
(3) Whether the compensation has been rightly
granted by the Tribunal ?
7. In the present case, there is evidence adduced by the two witnesses for the claimant both of whom have stated that the deceased was travelling by the train after purchasing valid journey ticket. This evidence of two witnesses has not been controverted in any manner by ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:25:26 ::: 4 the appellant. Not even a single suggestion of denial of their evidence has been given to both of these witnesses. On the contrary, there is evidence to show that train ticket was recovered from the dead body. This is also seen from the inquest panchanama. Therefore, I find that the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. Point no. (1) is answered as in the affirmative.
8. About the untoward incident, I must say that on this point also, there is nothing in the entire evidence available on record to enable this Court to express any doubt about the manner in which the deceased Sainath died accidentally in the present case. There is no dispute about the fact that he died due to his coming under the wheels of a running train and the dispute is only about manner in which he came under the wheels of a running train. According to the appellant, it happened at the time when the deceased was trying to catch running train while respondent submits that the accident occurred when the deceased fell off the running train. The appellant, when claims that statutory enquiry was conducted by it, could have examined the officer (s) who conducted the statutory nquiry so as to throw sufficient light about the manner in which the accident had occurred. But, the appellant did not examine a single witness in their defence. Even the statutory enquiry report preared under rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:25:26 ::: 5 Incidents) Rules, 2003 was not adduced in evidence. Therefore, there is no alternative for the Court other than to consider whatever has been tendered in evidence by the side of the claimant. This evidence of the claimant comprises the deposition of claimant herself and brother of deceased Sainath by name Gangadhar. We find that except for giving suggestions of denial, no circumstance has been brought on record by the appellant to entertain any doubt about their respective versions regarding occurrence of accident. Their unanimous version is that deceased fell off running train due to sustaining of severe injuries from such fall. This version in the absence of any relevant circumstances showing falsity of the deposition of the two witnesses, would have to be accepted and accepting the same, I find that the respondent has proved that deceased Sainath died due to his accidental fall from a running train which constituted an "untoward incident". Point no. 2 is answered as in the affirmative.
9. Once it is found that the deceased died accidentally which constituted an untoward incident under Section 123 (c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, compensation would be due and payable to the dependent of the deceased. The Tribunal has rightly held that such compensation is due and payable by the appellant to the respondent. The quantum of compensation has been fixed according to ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:25:26 ::: 6 the provisions of the Railways Act and I do not find any illegality in the same. Point No. (3) is answered as in the affirmative.
10. In the result, appeal fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs.
S. B. SHUKRE, J joshi ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:25:26 :::