Bombay High Court
First Appeal No. 12 Of 2012 vs Unknown on 2 December, 2013
Bench: A.P. Bhangale
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/
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
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
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
