Vandana Wd/O Sukhadeo Wankhade vs Union Of India Through The General ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1086 Bom

                  fa881.15.odt                                                                                      1/8

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.




                                                                                                               
                                                      FIRST APPEAL NO.881 OF 2015




                                                                                       
                   APPELLANT:                             Vandana   Wd/o   Sukhdeo   Wankhade,
                                                          aged about 38 years, Occ. Labour, R/o
                   (On R.A.)
                                                          Manjari   Mhasala,   Tah.   Nandgaon
                                                          Khandeshwar, District-Amravati.




                                                                                      
                                                                                                                   
                                                               -VERSUS-

                   RESPONDENT:                                             Union   of   India   through   the   General




                                                                      
                                                                           Manager,   Central   Railway,   C.S.T.,
                   (On R.A.) 
                                                                           Mumbai.
                   
                                    
                                                                                                                           

                  Shri R. G. Bagul, Advocate for the appellant.
                                   
                  Shri N. P. Lambat Advocate for the respondent.
      

                                                      CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

DATED: 1 APRIL, 2016.

st

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. By order dated 12-10-2015, notice for final disposal

was issued. The present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway

Claims Tribunal Act, 1989 has been preferred by the original

claimants who are aggrieved by the judgment dated 22-6-2015

passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur dismissing the

application for grant of compensation.

2. It is the case of the applicants that the husband of the

fa881.15.odt 2/8

applicant no.1 Sukhdeorao after purchasing a ticket for travelling

from Nagpur to Badnera had boarded Train No.1040 on 2-1-2011.

On account of heavy rush in the general compartment, the said

Sukhdeorao who was standing near the door of the compartment

fell down due to a jerk and received injuries. Said Sukhdeorao

succumbed to his injury on 24-1-2011. On that basis, the

claimants filed an application seeking grant of compensation on 2-

1-2012. The claim was opposed by the railway administration on

the ground that the accident occurred due to criminal act of the

said passenger and, therefore, there was no liability to pay

compensation. After considering the evidence on record, the

Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was not a bonafide

passenger and therefore, the claimants were not entitled for the

compensation. Accordingly, the application was dismissed by the

impugned judgment dated 22-6-2015.

3. Shri R. G. Bagul, learned Counsel for the appellants

submitted that the Claims Tribunal was not justified in rejecting

the claim for compensation. He submitted that there was sufficient

material on record to indicate that Sukhdeorao was a bonafide

passenger and that the claimants are entitled for compensation

due to his accidental death. He submitted that immediately after

the accident, the statement of said Sukhdeorao was recorded by

fa881.15.odt 3/8

the police authorities on 12-1-2011. The fact that the accident had

occurred was also recorded in the Station Master's diary on the

same day in which it was mentioned that one Praful Pinjarkar had

informed the Station Master on telephone that said Sukhdeorao

had fallen from the train and was injured. It was submitted that

Sukhdeorao was having a valid ticket as per the panchanama

dated 28-4-2011. Considering the fact that the accident occurred

due to a fall from the train and in absence of any evidence by the

respondents that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, the

claim could not have been disallowed.

It was submitted that the Claims Tribunal relied upon

the deposition of said Praful Pinjarkar which was recorded more

than a year after the accident. Said statement could not have been

relied upon as it was contrary to what was mentioned in the

Station Master Diary. It was then submitted that by applying the

wrong tests, the claim for compensation has been rejected. The

learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme

Court in Jameela and others vs. Union of India 2010 ACJ 2453. It

was, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment is liable to

be set aside and the claimants deserve to be granted

compensation.

4. Shri N. P. Lambat, learned Counsel for the respondents

fa881.15.odt 4/8

opposed aforesaid submissions. According to him, the deceased

was not a bonafide passenger and the statement of the deceased

that was recorded on 12-1-2011 indicated that he was sitting on

the foot board of the compartment which was not permissible. He

then submitted that in the inquest panchanama dated 25-2-2011,

the railway ticket was not found and, therefore, the deceased

could not be treated as a bonafide passenger. He submitted that

the claimants had not discharged their burden of proving their

case that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. According to

him, the statement of Praful Pinjarkar clearly indicated that the

deceased was residing near the railway line and that he was not

travelling in Train No.1040 as alleged. The learned Counsel placed

reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in case of Bimla

Devi and Anr. vs. Union of India decided on 8-1-2014 (FAO

No.421/2012). The learned Counsel sought for dismissal of the

appeal.

5. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the

parties, I have perused the records of the case and I have also gone

through the impugned judgment.

6. The following point arises for consideration:

Whether the appellants are entitled for grant of

compensation in the facts of the case?

fa881.15.odt 5/8

7. The material on record that has been considered by the

Claims Tribunal indicates that on 2-1-2011 a message was received

by the Station Master that one Sukhdeorao had fallen from Train

No.1040 and was found in an injured state. This information was

given by one Praful Pinjarkar on telephone. Said injured

passenger was thereafter shifted to Irvin Hospital for medical

treatment at Amravati. In said Hospital, the statement of the

passenger was recorded by the General Reserved Police on 12-1-

2011. In said statement, the passenger - Sukhdeorao had stated

that while travelling in Train No.1040, he had fallen down on

account of weakness due to strain. The said passenger Sukhdeorao

ultimately succumbed to his injury on 24-1-2011. The claim for

compensation was filed on 2-1-2012.

8. It is first necessary to consider whether said

Sukhdeorao fell from Train No.1040 during the course of his

journey. The document at record page A-95 is the entry from the

diary of the Station Master. The information received on 2-1-2011

indicates that the fact that Sukhdeorao had fallen from Train

no.1040. This fact is further reiterated in the statement of said

passenger which was recorded on 12-1-2011. The railway ticket

on the basis of which said Sukhdeorao was travelling is at record

page A-90 pursuant to the panchanama executed in that regard.

fa881.15.odt 6/8

Considering this material and in absence of any other contrary

material on record, it is clear that said Sukhdeorao was travelling

in Train No.1040 having a valid ticket on 2-1-2011.

The fact that the statement of said Praful Pinjarkar is

recorded on 16-2-2012 more than a year after the accident and

after service of the notice of the claim application on the railways

renders said statement doubtful. The entry in the diary of the

Station Master and its effect cannot be watered down by the

statement recorded after more than one year.

9. The Claims Tribunal while refusing the grant of

compensation has laid much emphasis on the inquest panchanama

which is dated 25-2-2011. It is to be noted that the accident

occurred on 2-1-2011 after which the injured passenger was

shifted to the Hospital. It was not expected that during said period

of treatment, the railway ticket would be retained by him. It is the

specific case that all the belongings had been handed over to the

brother-in-law of the said passenger. It is, therefore, not possible

to hold that as it was not mentioned in the inquest panchanama

that a railway ticket was found, the deceased was not a bonafide

passenger.

10. In Jameela and others (supra), the passenger therein

was standing at the open door of the train from where he fell

fa881.15.odt 7/8

down. It was held that said act could be called a negligent act, but

would not be a criminal act under provisions of Section 124-A of

the Railways Act, 1989. In the present case, the material on record

indicates that said Sukhdeorao was sitting near the door of the

compartment after which he had fallen due to a jerk. Considering

aforesaid law, it cannot be said that any criminal act was

committed by the deceased when he was travelling in the train.

For the same reason, the judgment relied upon by the learned

Counsel for the respondents in Bimla Devi and another (supra)

cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case.

11. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is clear that Sukhdeorao

was a bonafide passenger and he died on account of an untoward

incident while travelling by Train No.1040. The claimants would

be entitled to receive the statutory amount of compensation. The

point as framed is answered by holding that the appellants are

entitled to the grant of compensation.

12. In view of aforesaid, the following order is passed:

(1) The judgment dated 22-6-2015 passed by the Railway

Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Case No.OA(llu)/NGP/2012/0008 is

quashed and set aside.

(2) The appellants are entitled for statutory compensation

of Rs.4,00,000/- with 6% interest from 2-1-2012 when the claim

fa881.15.odt 8/8

application was filed till realisation. The amount of compensation

be paid to the appellants within a period of eight weeks.

(3) The appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms with no order

as to costs.

JUDGE

//MULEY//