Bombay High Court
Sunita Dnyaneshwar Sonawane And ... vs Union Of India Thr G.M., Central ... on 23 November, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.3173 OF 2016
1. Sunita Wd/o Dnyaneshwar Sonawane,
Age: 22 years, Occu.: Household,
2. Hemand S/o Dnyaneshwar Sonawane,
Age: 2 years, Occu.: Nil,
(Applicant No.2 is minor and as such,
under guardian of his mother i.e.
applicant No.1),
3. Ratilal S/o Ramkrushna Sonawane,
Age: 45 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
4. Chayabai W/o. Ratilal Sonawane,
Age:42 years, Occu.: Household,
All R/o. Sujade, Tq. and Dist.
Jalgaon (M.S.)
...APPELLANTS
(Original Appellants)
VERSUS
Union of India,
Through General Manager,
Western Railway, Churchgate,
Mumbai
...RESPONDENT
(Original Respondent)
...
Mr. Vishnu B. Madan, Advocate for Appellants;
Mr. Navandar Manish N., Advocate for Respondent
/sole.
...
::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2016 00:51:56 :::
2
CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.
DATE : 23rd November, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. With consent of the learned counsel appearing
for the parties the appeal is heard finally at the admission
stage. The present appeal is filed against the judgment
and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal at Nagpur
in Case No. OA/(IIu)/NGP/2012/0339.
2. The aforesaid Claim Application was filed by the
present appellants / applicants seeking compensation on
account of death of deceased Dnyaneshwar, which was
alleged to have been caused while deceased Dnyaneshwar
was travelling as a bona fide passenger and fell down from
the train from which he was travelling. It was the
contention of the applicants / appellants that deceased
Dnyaneshwar boarded the train at Jalgaon Railway Station
and was proceeding towards Surat. It was the further
contention of the appellants that because of heavy rush in
the compartment by which deceased was travelling, he fell
down from the running train in between Railway Station
Paldi and Railway Station Chawalkheda.
3. Per contra, it was the contention of the Railway
Administration that deceased committed suicide by
throwing himself before the running train and, as such,
was run over by the train and his body was cut in two
pieces. Before the Tribunal, the wife of deceased
Dnyaneshwar deposed, and the father of deceased
Dnyaneshwar also adduced his oral evidence whereas,
from the Railway Administration, the Station Master of
Paldhi and Loco Pilot of the train testified.
4. I have carefully gone through the evidence
recorded in the matter and in the light of the evidence
when I read the impugned judgment, I do not find any
infirmity in the impugned judgment.
ig The appellants have
utterly failed in bringing on record any evidence showing
that deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger and
that he died because of an untoward incident so as to
make them entitled to receive the compensation under
Section 124(A) of the Railways Act.
5. The material on record shows that the Railway
ticket was not recovered from the person of the deceased
or from the spot of the occurrence. Though it is the
contention of the father of deceased Dnyaneshwar that he
had purchased the ticket of deceased Dnyaneshwar and
had handed it over to him, the said evidence is not
corroborated by any other independent evidence.
Admittedly the railway ticket has not been recovered from
the person of the deceased or from the spot of occurrence.
As against it, RW No.2 namely, Nilesh Kumar
Rameshchandra Rathod, in his testimony before the Court
has specifically deposed that he was the Loco Pilot of Tapti
Ganga Express on the date of accident and he saw one
person throwing himself before his train in between Paldhi
Station and Chawalkheda. The said witness has further
deposed that the said person was run over by his train and
after occurrence of such incident he had immediately
informed to the Station Master as about the incident and
has also taken note of the said incident in his diary. All
these documents which are placed on record are exhibited.
Nothing has been
ig brought on record in the cross
examination of RW No.2 so as to disbelieve his testimony.
Considering all this evidence, it does not appear to me that
the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the
Claim Application filed by the present appellants.
6. The Appeal being devoid of substance deserves
to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
...
agp
