The Union Of India vs Mangalabai
2013 Latest Caselaw 269 Bom

                              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.

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

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

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

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

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

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