Smt. Sukmaro Kui Wd/O Sadhucharan ... vs Union Of India, Through The ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3640 Bom

                                                             1                                     jg.fa869.15.odt




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




                                                                            
                                   FIRST APPEAL NO. 869 OF 2015

    (1) Smt. Sukmaro Kui Wd/o
          Sadhucharan Surin 




                                                                           
          Aged 58 years, Occ. - Housewife, 

    (2) Ku. Madui d/o Sadhucharan Surin 
          Aged 19 years, Occup. Student




                                                         
          Both R/o Village Devabir, 
          Post Kuira (West), Singhbhum, 
          Jharkhand - 833 105. 
                                  ig                                                              ... Appellants 

                 VERSUS
                                
    Union of India through the
    General Manager, South East 
    Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.)                                                            ... Respondent
      


    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Shri C. N. Deshpande, Advocate for the appellants 
   



    Shri N. P. Lambat, Advocate for the respondent
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                      CORAM :  PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.

                                                         Date    :  7-7-2016
    ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties finally.

2. The appellants challenged the judgment and order passed

by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Application

No. O.A. (llu)/NGP/2012/0177 thereby dismissing the application.

2 jg.fa869.15.odt

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal can be

summarized as follow :

The appellants submitted claim application before the Railway

Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. It was submitted in the

application that one Dhansingh s/o Sadhucharan Surin (son of appellant

no. 1 and brother of appellant no. 2) was working at Mumbai. On

17-6-2011, Dhansingh travelled by train No. 18029 from Nagpur to

Jharkhand so as to visit his native place. It was submitted that when the

train reached platform no. 1 of Kamptee Railway Station, there was an

accidental fall of Dhansingh from the train. Dhansingh fall between

platform and train and consequently was run over and crushed to death

on the spot. It was submitted that at the time of death, Dhansingh was

about 31 years of age. He was unmarried at the time of accident. He

was working as a skilled labour at construction site in Mumbai since

4-5 years and was earning about Rs. 8,000/- per month. The appellants,

being the legal representatives, approached the Claims Tribunal for the

compensation claim of Rs. 4,00,000/- with 15% interest per annum. It

was submitted that the claim application was filed within one year. The

claim was opposed by the respondent by filing the written statement. It

was submitted that there was no material to show that the deceased was

3 jg.fa869.15.odt

a bonafide passenger. It was further submitted that as per the record of

the railway administration, said train i.e. Kurla Shalimar Express was

neither overcrowded on the day of the accident nor there was any heavy

jerk observed during the journey causing fall of any passenger during

the journey. It was submitted that the information was received by on

duty Station Master of Kamptee Railway Station that the incident of run

over of the train causing death of a person and registered as D.E. No.

1251 on 17-6-2011. Thus, the respondent resisted the claim on the

ground that deceased was not a bonafide passenger and the incident

could not have been covered under the expression 'untoward incident'

ad defined in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. It was also the

submission of the respondent that the person lost his life due to his own

negligence, as such, the claimants would not be entitled for any

compensation as claimed by them and the respondent prayed for

dismissal of the claim application. The Railway Claims Tribunal, on

appreciation of the material placed before it, framed issues namely :

(1) Whether the applicants prove that they are dependant of the deceased within the meaning of Section 123(b) of the Railways Act ?

(2) Whether the applicants prove that the death of the deceased had occurred as a result of an untoward incident

4 jg.fa869.15.odt

as alleged in the claim application ?

(3) Whether the Respondent Railways prove that deceased

was not a bona fide passenger on the train on the relevant day with valid journey ticket and the deceased was not

involved in untoward incident ?

There was no serious dispute on the first issue. Insofar as the issue

nos. 2 and 3 were concerned, on the assessment and the scrutiny of the

material, the Claims Tribunal could not find any favour with the

claimants. In the result, the claim application was dismissed.

4. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellants

vehemently submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in

dismissing the claim petition/application. It was the submission of

Shri Deshpande, learned counsel that the Claims Tribunal, instead of

adopting the hyper technical approach, ought to have considered the

claim application on the backdrop of the object of the Act. His

submission was the Act, being beneficial Act, the Tribunal ought to have

assessed whether the Railway Authorities discharged their burden in

negating the claim of the claimants. It was also the submission of

Shri Deshpande, learned counsel that merely non-finding of the railway

ticket with the deceased, the claim ought not to have been dismissed

as in all eventuality, the ticket could have been lost by the deceased

5 jg.fa869.15.odt

passenger. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel in support of his

submission that the Act being the beneficial legislation, submitted that

the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation by allowing the

claim petition.

5. Per contra, Shri Lambat, learned counsel for the

respondent submitted that no error is committed by the Claims

Tribunal. Shri Lambat further submitted that the claimants utterly

failed to place any material before the Tribunal in support of the claim

that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. It was the submission of

Shri Lambat that on the contrary, the respondent placed the material

before the Tribunal to show that the death of deceased was not an

accidental fall but it was the case of negligence of the deceased and case

of death due to run over by train.

6. In view of the rival submissions of the learned counsel

appearing for the parties, the question arise for consideration in appeal

is :

whether the Claims Tribunal was justified in dismissing the

claim petition holding that the claimants failed to show

that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and the case

was not of an accidental fall but was of death due to run

6 jg.fa869.15.odt

over by train ?

Though there cannot be any dispute on the submission proposed by

Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellants that the object of the

Act, namely, Railway Claims Tribunal Act is to provide a just

compensation to the victims and as such, it is a beneficial legislation.

At the same time, one cannot ignore that for awarding compensation

toward the railway accident claim, the claimants will have to establish

that the victim was a bonafide passenger and the case of injury or death

of the passenger to claim compensation is covered by the expression

accidental death of the passenger. In the present matter, it was the case

of the claimants that the deceased Dhansingh was engaged as a

construction labour at Mumbai and he left Mumbai to visit his native

place in State of Jharkhand. He undertook the journey from Mumbai to

Nagpur and then from Nagpur to Chakradharpur. It was the claim of

the claimants that on 14-6-2011, Dhansingh purchased a second class

journey ticket from Elphinston Road to Chembur Railway Station. Then

he purchased second class railway ticket from Dadar Railway Station to

Nagpur Railway Station on 14-6-2011. He reached Nagpur and while

completing his onward journey from Nagpur to Chakradharpur, it was

the claim of the claimants that due to jostling and jerk and push from

7 jg.fa869.15.odt

other passengers, Dhansingh fell down from the train in between the

platform and train and was subjected to death by running over of train.

Insofar as the journey of Dhansingh from Elphinston Road to Chembur

Railway Station is concerned, it could have been termed as local

journey. The claimants claimed that he boarded from Dadar Railway

Station towards Nagpur by purchasing the second class ordinary ticket

on 14-6-2011 and reached Nagpur and then undertook the forward

journey. Though it is the submission of the claimants that Dhansingh,

the deceased undertook the journey from Nagpur to Chakradharpur, the

material placed on record shows that from Nagpur to Chakradharpur, it

was not a onward journey because Dhansingh reached by Dadar-Nagpur

train which left Dadar on 14-6-2011 and might have been reached

Nagpur on next day i.e. on 15-6-2011 and deceased boarded at Nagpur

on 17-6-2011. The submission of the claimants was Dhansingh

purchased second class ordinary ticket of Shalimar Express. On

appreciation and assessment of the material, it was found by the

Tribunal that though it was the case of the claimants that the ordinary

ticket was purchased by the deceased for the relevant journey from

Nagpur to Chakradharpur, it was not found. It was the case of the

claimants that it might have been lost. The Tribunal on the aspect of the

claim of accidental fall of deceased Dhansingh referred to the material,

8 jg.fa869.15.odt

namely, on the aspect of accidental fall of the deceased Dhansingh.

Material placed on record at the instance of the respondent was an

intimation received by the on duty Station Master. Information was

after the departure of the train and accident of death occurred due to

run over of the train. The intimation/information was noted as D.E. No.

1251 on 17-6-2011. The statements recorded by the Railway

Authorities show that on duty Driver and the Guard in their statements

denied that there was any heavy rush or the jerk caused in the journey.

Even the statements of co-passengers seem to have been recorded.

None of the statements of these co-passengers suggested any jerk caused

in the journey to the said train. The documents placed on record i.e.

Exhibit AW-1/2 i.e. memo issued by the Station Master mentioned that

the deceased was run over by train No. 18029. Post mortem report

placed on record suggested the probable cause of death was due to

haemorrhage and neurological shock due to injuries to spine and vital

organs. Report of DRM was also placed on record and the DRM report

shows that it was a case of run over of the train. Considering all these

aspects, the Tribunal was not inclined to allow the claim application. As

referred to above, though there cannot be any dispute on the aspect that

the object of the Act is to provide compensation to the victims of the

untoward incident, namely, the accidental fall from the train, it is not in

9 jg.fa869.15.odt

dispute that it is for the claimants to establish that the deceased was a

bonafide passenger. It is also not in dispute that a plea can certainly be

taken that though the deceased purchased a valid ticket for the train

journey, the ticket was lost but to claim compensation, the claimants

have to show that it was a fall due to untoward incident or accidental

fall from the train carrying passenger. In the present matter, it is the

case of the claimants that Dhansingh left Mumbai on 14-6-2011 to visit

his native place in State of Jharkhand. It was the case that Dhansingh

undertook onward journey from Nagpur to his native place. The

material placed on record shows that there was no plausible explanation

coming from the claimants on the aspect of the journey being onward

journey from Nagpur to the native place of deceased Dhansingh in State

of Jharkhand. Material placed on record show that it was a break

journey. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased boarded on

Shalimar Express on 17-6-2011, thus, the Claims Tribunal observed that

there was no explanation to show that what the deceased was doing for

two days in Nagpur. Be that as it may, the most relevant and important

aspect would be whether the claimants established their claim that the

deceased Dhansingh suffered untoward incident, namely, accidental

fall from a train carrying passengers. The claimants failed to place on

10 jg.fa869.15.odt

record any material to support their claim. On the contrary, the

material placed on record at the instance of the respondent was in the

nature of intimation received by the Station Master and note forwarded

by the Station Master. These documents showed that there was no

accidental fall of a passenger from the train. Apart from this material, it

was also submitted that statements of co-passengers were recorded. In

the statements of the Driver of the train and the Guard of the train, it

was stated that there was neither jostling nor any jerk causing accident

of fall of passenger. Even the statements of co-passengers were to the

effect that there was no jerk to the train which would cause the

accidental fall. The other material also shows that the report from the

Railway Authorities was that the said train was not overloaded by

passengers, as such, there was no reason to cause a jerk by heavy rush of

the passengers resulting accidental fall of any passenger. The post

mortem report placed on record state that probable cause of death was

due to haemorrhage and neurological shock due to injuries to spine and

vital organs as a result of railway accident. Thus, on considering all the

relevant material placed on record, I am of the opinion that neither

there is any error nor any perversity in the conclusion arrived at by the

Railway Claims Tribunal thereby dismissing the claim application. The

appeal is thus, wholly meritless. The point for consideration will have

11 jg.fa869.15.odt

to be replied in affirmative that the Claims Tribunal was justified in

dismissing the claim application. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

JUDGE

wasnik