In The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs Unknown
2013 Latest Caselaw 149 Bom

                                            1

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                        NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                                                   
                                                           
    First Appeal No. 644 of 2007 

    Appellant           :      Union of India, through General Manager,




                                                          
                               South Central Railway, Secunderabad 

                               versus




                                               
    Respondents         :      1)  Pandurang son of Deepaji Pawar, aged about
                             
                               25 years, Occ: Labour

                               2) Rukhminibai Deepaji Pawar, aged about 34
                            
                               years, occ: Household,

                               Both residents of Devalgaon-Awachar, Tahsil 
           


                               Pathri, District Parbhani
        



    Mr P. S. Lambat, Advocate for appellant 

    None for respondents 





                                     Coram :  A.  P.  Bhangale, J

                                     Dated  :  13th November 2013





    Oral Judgment

    1.           Appellant   Union   of   India,   through   South   Central   Railway, 

    Secunderabad   has     challenged   legality   and   validity   of   order   dated 

    20.12.2002 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench in Claim 

    Application No. 18/OA-II/RCT/NGP/1997 granting compensation of Rsw. 4 




                                                           ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:32:21 :::
                                                  2

    lacs to the respondents together with interest @ 6% per annum. 

    2.            Facts

are that Deepaji Pawar, father of applicant no. 1 and

husband of applicant no. 2, was travelling from Osmanpur to Devalgaon-

Awachat by Daund-Purna Passenger train on 4.7.1996. At Devalgaon

Station, driver of the Train suddenly applied brakes which resulted in jerks

and Deepaji fell down and died.

3. Respondent Railway Administration denied the claim on the

following grounds -

(i)

Deceased Deepaji was not a bonafide passenger;

(ii) Applicants have not given complete particulars; and

(iii) Deepaji might have fallen down due to carelessness.

4. First Information Report, Accidental Death Report, Inquest

Panchanama, Spot Panchanama, Post-mortem report etc. were duly proved

on record. Ticket No. 0167 held by deceased Deepaji and recovered from

his person was produced on record. AW 2 Dnynoba deposed that deceased

had purchased ticket in his presence and Deepaji was travelling with him.

From all this, it cannot be said that Deepaji was not a bonafide passenger.

First contention of the railway administration is, therefore, not acceptable.

Original claimants filed their affidavits by giving particulars of

their relationship with Deepaji. Nothing contrary was brought on record by

the appellant to show that the relationship as was claimed, did not exist.

Second contention of the railway administration is too out of place.

AW 2 Dnyanoba deposed that he was co-passenger with

Deepaji and both of them were sitting inside the apartment. He also was

getting down at Devalgaon Railway Station. He deposed that train stopped

short of station distance and when it again started, there were jerks due to

which Deepaji fell down. He further deposed that he wanted to make

complaint, but the Station Master was not available and the driver to

whom complaint was made, did not respond. This evidence has gone

unchallenged. Railway Administration has thus failed to prove its

allegation that Deepaji Pawar might have died due to carelessness and

negligence. No exception is pleaded and proved by the Railway

administration to escape liability to ompensate the victim who was

bonafide passenger and who met with untoward incident.

5. In the facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal

and the same deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.

A. P. BHANGALE, J

joshi