Union Of India Thru. G.M vs Ganga Sagar Sainath Maroti ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8638 Bom

                                                  1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                         NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

First Appeal No. 440  of 2014 

Appellant :              Union of India, through its General Manager,
                         through its General Manager, South Central 
                         Railway, Secunderabad (AP)

                         Versus

Respondent:              Smt Ganga Sagar wife of late Sainath Maroti
                         Waghmare, aged about 26 years, Occ: Housewife,
                         resident of Atkur Village, Dharmabad, District
                         Nanded

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shri P. S. Lambat, Advocate for appellant Shri Shashikant b. Bangde, Advocate for respondent

Coram : S. B. Shukre, J

Dated : 13th November 2017

Oral Judgment

1. This appeal challenges legality and correctness of the

judgment and order dated 22nd September 2006 passed by the Member

(Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Claim

Application No. 135/OA-II/RCT/NGP/2004 whereby compensation of Rs.

4,00,000/- has been granted to the claimant, widow of deceased Sainath

Maruti Waghmare on account of untimely death of Sainath in an

untoward incident as contemplated under Section 123 (c) read with

Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

2. The untoward incident in the nature of accidental falling of

deceased Sainath from running train, Passenger Train-557 occurred in the

morning of 22.1.2004. Sainath was travelling from Karkheli to

Shivangaon and the accident occurred while the train was still at Karkheli

Railway Station. After falling off the train, the deceased came under the

wheels of the train and his head got severred. His dead body was

recovered from railway track at the platform of Karkheli Railway Station.

Respondent being dependent upon the deceased, filed a petition claiming

compensation for the death of her husband.

3. The claim was allowed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, as

stated earlier.

4. Shri Lambat, learned counsel for the appellant submits that

as per the statutory report prepared under rule 7 of the Railway

Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003,

the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as no railway ticket was

recovered from his dead body and it was wrongly mentioned in the

inquest report by the PSI, Railway Police, Purna. He submits that the

guard who first inspected the dead body had found Rs. 800/- cash as

present on the person of the deceased which he removed from the dead

body and handed it over to the personnel of railway police. He further

submits that the accident had occurred not while the deceased was on the

train, but when, probably, the deceased tried to catch a running train in

an illegal manner. So, according to him, viewed in any way, the appllant

would not be liable to pay compensation in the present case.

5. This is all disagreed to by learned counsel for the respondent.

He submits that the Tribunal has rightly granted compensation in the

present case.

6. Upon cosideration of rival arguments and record of the case,

the following points arise for my determination :

(1) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger ?

(2) Whether the deceased had died in an untoward

incident ?

        (3)      Whether the compensation has been rightly 

                 granted by the Tribunal ?

7. In the present case, there is evidence adduced by the two

witnesses for the claimant both of whom have stated that the deceased

was travelling by the train after purchasing valid journey ticket. This

evidence of two witnesses has not been controverted in any manner by

the appellant. Not even a single suggestion of denial of their evidence has

been given to both of these witnesses. On the contrary, there is evidence

to show that train ticket was recovered from the dead body. This is also

seen from the inquest panchanama. Therefore, I find that the Tribunal

has rightly concluded that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. Point

no. (1) is answered as in the affirmative.

8. About the untoward incident, I must say that on this point

also, there is nothing in the entire evidence available on record to enable

this Court to express any doubt about the manner in which the deceased

Sainath died accidentally in the present case. There is no dispute about

the fact that he died due to his coming under the wheels of a running

train and the dispute is only about manner in which he came under the

wheels of a running train. According to the appellant, it happened at the

time when the deceased was trying to catch running train while

respondent submits that the accident occurred when the deceased fell off

the running train. The appellant, when claims that statutory enquiry was

conducted by it, could have examined the officer (s) who conducted the

statutory nquiry so as to throw sufficient light about the manner in which

the accident had occurred. But, the appellant did not examine a single

witness in their defence. Even the statutory enquiry report preared under

rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward

Incidents) Rules, 2003 was not adduced in evidence. Therefore, there is

no alternative for the Court other than to consider whatever has been

tendered in evidence by the side of the claimant. This evidence of the

claimant comprises the deposition of claimant herself and brother of

deceased Sainath by name Gangadhar. We find that except for giving

suggestions of denial, no circumstance has been brought on record by the

appellant to entertain any doubt about their respective versions regarding

occurrence of accident. Their unanimous version is that deceased fell off

running train due to sustaining of severe injuries from such fall. This

version in the absence of any relevant circumstances showing falsity of

the deposition of the two witnesses, would have to be accepted and

accepting the same, I find that the respondent has proved that deceased

Sainath died due to his accidental fall from a running train which

constituted an "untoward incident". Point no. 2 is answered as in the

affirmative.

9. Once it is found that the deceased died accidentally which

constituted an untoward incident under Section 123 (c) read with

Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, compensation would be due

and payable to the dependent of the deceased. The Tribunal has rightly

held that such compensation is due and payable by the appellant to the

respondent. The quantum of compensation has been fixed according to

the provisions of the Railways Act and I do not find any illegality in the

same. Point No. (3) is answered as in the affirmative.

10. In the result, appeal fails and is dismissed without any order

as to costs.

S. B. SHUKRE, J

joshi