1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 1012 of 2010
Appellant : The Union of India, through General Manager,
Central Railway, CST, Mumbai
Versus
Respondents: 1) Rajendrasingh son of Jhabbursingh Tomar
(Thakur), aged about 55 years, Occ: service
2) Smt Nubai w/o Rajendrasingh Tomar
(Thakur), aged about 50 years, Occ: Household
Both residents of Ward No. 4, Bhatpura, Katol,
District Nagpur
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P. S. Lambat, Advocate for appellant None appears for respondents Coram : S. B. Shukre, J Dated : 13th November 2017 Oral Judgment
1. This is an appeal which questions the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 26th February 2010 passed by ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2017 01:04:10 ::: 2 the Member (J), Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur thereby granting compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the respondents on account of accidental death of their son Dilip Rajendrasingh Tomar.
2. It was the case of the respondents that on 30 th March 2007, Dilip was returning from Bhopal to Nagpur by Lucknow-Chennai Express and when the train reached Katol Railway Station, Dilip lost balance and fell down from the running train. They submitted that in this fall, Dilip sustained grievous injuries and he was removed to the Government Hospital at Katol where he succumbed to the injuries on 3 rd April 2017. According to them, the deceased was a bonafide passenger, he having purchased railway ticket for his journey from Bhopal to Nagpur. According to them, he was travelling on a general class ticket, occupying the general compartment of the train. So, a claim was raised against the appellant claiming compensation by the respondents.
3. On merits on the case, the Tribunal found that the respondents proved their contentions and by allowing the claim petition, granted compesation to them by the impugned judgment and order. Not being satisfied with the same, the appellant is before this Court in the present appeal.
::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2017 01:04:10 ::: 3
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length. Nobody appears for the respondents, though duly served. I have go ne through the record and proceedings including impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal.
5. Now, the material point which arises for my determination are -
Whether it is proved that deceased Dilip was travelling on Lucknow-Chennai Express after having boarded the train at Bhopal on purchasing a valid ticket and as a bonafide passenger ?
6. It is the case of respondents that on 30 th March 2007, their son Dilip was returning to Nagpur from Bhopal where he had gone to acquire technical knowhow about the production of "Resham Larwa" (Silk Larvae) and that he had purchased a general class ticket and boarded Lucknow-Chennai Express for returning to Nagpur. This case has been completely denied by the respondents. It is admitted fact that dead body of Dilip was recovered from near the railway track at Katol Railway Station immediately after passing over of said train from Katol station. There is an adcidental death report (Exhibit 19) registered by ASI Anandrao Gavai. This accidental death report does not state about recovery of railway ticket from the person of the deceased. Respondents ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2017 01:04:10 ::: 4 also admit that in the enquiry that was conducted on that day, no railway ticket was recovered from the possession of the deceased. This fact has been viewed by the Tribunal as not creating any adverse impact on the case of the respondents, stating that it is quite likely that in an accidental fall of a person from running train, his belongings including train ticket may get lost or scattered over such a long distance as not noticeable to human eye. Such an explanation in ordinary circumstances would be acceptable, but not when the evidence otherwise suggests. Let us see what the evidence suggests in this regard, in favour or against the respondents.
7. There is evidence of railway guard Durgaprasad Chourasia who was on duty on Lucknow-Chennai Express from Itarsi to Nagpur which is material. According to him, no untoward incident occurred on this train on 30th March 2007 between Itarsi and Nagpur. Admittedly, Katol station falls between these two railway stations. There is nothing in the cross-examination taken on behalf of the respondents to prove the contrary. The report of accidental death (Exhibit D-19) states that according to Nanubai, mother of deceased Dilip, the deceased had left the house in the afternoon of 29 th March 2007 and did not return home. At that time, mother of the deceased did not say anything about the deceased having gone to Bhopal for some training and about his return from Bhopal to Nagpur on 30 th March 2007. If the deceased had really ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2017 01:04:10 ::: 5 gone gone to Bhopal, his mother would have said so then. Her not saying so goes against the story of the respondents. No explanation whatsoever has been given in this regard by her. Such evidence creates veritable doubt that deceased being a bonafide passenger travelling on Lucknow- Chennai Express had really boarded the said train at Bhopal for his return to Nagpur on 30th March 2007.
8. In the circumstances, it was absolutely essential for the respondents to have adduced further evidence to support their claim. However, it is seen from the evidence available on record that they have failed to do so. The respondents could have at least examined a person from Bhopal who was to impart technical knowledge to their son about sericulture at Bhopal. Had the respondents examined some person who was contacted at Bhopal by deceased, if it were so, the claimant's evidence would have received credence and appropriate finding could have been recorded by the Court. But in the absence of any evidence reasonably showing probability of the deceased travelling on the said train on the fateful day having been adduced by the respondents, evidence of railway guard Durgaprasad would have to be accpted as inspiring onfidence for the reason that it is well supported by the accidental death report (Exhibit D-19). This would mean that the respondents could not prove that the deceased was travelling as a ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2017 01:04:10 ::: 6 bonafide passenger on Lucknow-Chennai Express on 30 th March 2007. The possibility of the deceased having come under a running train while crossing a railway track at Katol of which he was a resident, appears to be more or at least cannot be ruled out. It then follows that the claimants would not be entitled to receive any compensation in the present case. Point is answered accordingly.
9. The Railway Claims Tribunal has failed to examine all these material aspects of the matter and the result is of perverse conclusion drawn by it. This is a fit case for making interference with the impugned judgment and order by allowing the appeal.
8. In the result, appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order are quashed and set aside. The claim petition is dismissed with costs. The decretal amount deposited in this Court be refunded to the appellant.
S. B. SHUKRE, J joshi ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2017 01:04:10 :::