The Bombay High Court allowed an appeal challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the Member (Judicial) and Member (Technical) Railway Claims Tribunal, vide which it dismissed the claim of the appellant.
The Court observed that it has to be presumed that, when the deceased was having a valid ticket, he was a bonafide passenger of that train.
Brief Facts:
The case of the appellant before the Railway Claims Tribunal was that on 28/01/2015 i.e., on the date of the incident, the deceased was traveling by Amravati-Nagpur Passenger Train. The deceased had purchased a journey ticket and boarded the said train. As usual, the train was overcrowded; hence, due to the jostling and pushing of passengers the deceased fell from the running train at the Pulgaon Railway line near the starter signal and died on the spot. The appellant, being the mother had filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur for claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the death of Kailash S/o Mahadeorao Raut, who died in an untoward incident i.e., falling from running train No. 51261 namely Amravati-Nagpur Passenger Train.
The respondent filed his reply and resisted the claim of the appellant. After considering the matter before it the learned Tribunal held that mere finding of the dead body by the side of track and recovery ticket is not sufficient to prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and pleased to dismiss the claim application vide Judgment and Order dated 21/11/2017. The aforesaid judgment is the subject matter of challenge in the present Appeal.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The Learned Counsels for the Appellants argued that the learned Tribunal while deciding the issue of bonafide passenger has held that the journey ticket Ex-Badnera to Dhamangaon is considered to be bonafide to board the said train i.e., Amravati-Nagpur passenger. It was further submitted by the appellant that the learned Tribunal cannot dismiss the claim application for want of eye witness.
The Counsel contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have decided the case on the basis of circumstantial evidence; the deceased was a bonafide passenger, the journey ticket was found with the deceased, and after considering the police documents, injuries sustained on the body and probable cause of death, the learned Tribunal ought to have held that deceased died due to untoward incident and therefore interference of this Court is required.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application and supported the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that no inference other than falling from the train at Pulgaon can be drawn, in view of the ticket possessed by the deceased at the time of the accident/untoward incident. It has to be presumed when the deceased was having a valid ticket, he was a bonafide passenger of that train. There is no witness examined by the railway to show that he was crossing the railway track and met with an accident. The learned Tribunal failed to appreciate all these facts. Merely on the basis of intimation given by Station Manager to the on-duty GRP/RPF for necessary action and time mentioned by him as 17.40 hrs., the inference was drawn by the learned Tribunal that the body was found before the arrival of the train at Pulgaon station. The Court noted that there might have been a mistake in mentioning time in the memo by Station Manager, as when a person purchased a ticket at Badnera just before 10-15 minutes, he could not have reached Pulgaon before the train reached Pulgaon and committed suicide or tried to cross the railway crossing.
In the above context, the Court said that every minute detail about the travel of the deceased cannot be expected to be proved as per the record of Railway Authority as the claimants were neither eyewitnesses to the incident nor were they traveling with the deceased.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the appeal, held that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is totally perverse, erroneous, and liable to be set aside.
Case Title: Smt. Kamlabai vs UOI
Coram: Hon’ble Justice M.S. Jawalkar
Case no.: FIRST APPEAL NO. 1009 OF 2019
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. R.G. Bagul
Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. Neerja Choubey
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
