Shri. Dadarao Dashrath Salve And ... vs Union Of India, Through General ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 11240 Bom

                   Digitally signed
       IRESH       by IRESH
                   SIDDHARAM
       SIDDHARAM   MASHAL
       MASHAL      Date: 2021.08.25
                   11:26:28 +0530
                                                                           12.1317.19 FA.doc

ISM
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1317 OF 2019

      SHRI. DADARAO DASHRATH SALVE                                         ....APPELLANTS
      AND ANR

              V/s.

      UNION OF INDIA, THR.                                           .....RESPONDENTS
      GENERAL MANAGER

      Mr. Vasant N. More for the appellants
      Mr. T. J. Pandian a/w Mr. T. C. Subramanian a/w Mr. Dheer Sampat
      for Respondents

                                      CORAM :     NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                                      DATE:       AUGUST 18, 2021.

      P.C.:

      1]      Appellant's unmarried son Ajay died in a railway accident on

26/01/2012 having suffered serious injuries after he was knocked

down by train at Shivaji Nagar Railway Station.

2] In claim petition, claimants fled an affdavit thereby

discharging their initial burden establishing that the accident has

occurred in the premises of railway authorities and pursuant to the

claim under Section 124A of the Railways Act, respondent railway is

12.1317.19 FA.doc

liable for payment of compensation.

3] Tribunal negated the claim by a cryptic order without being

sensitive to the very scheme of Section 124A of the Railways Act and

also the fact of discharge of burden by the appellant by placing on

record as contemplated in the Judgment of the Apex Court in the

matter of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi [2018 ACJ 1441] and

Judgment delivered by this Court in the matter of Rekha Dilip

Sapkale Vs. Union of India [2021(3) ABR 327]. These judgments can

be eventually relied on so as to infer that claimant has established

their case for grant of compensation particularly on the basis of

following piece of evidence;

(a) The fact that accident having been occurred in the railway premises can be inferred from the documents which are produced.

(b) Report of Police Hawaldar Mr. S. D. Sonawane speaks of deceased Ajay dying due to getting knocked by the train.

(c) Railway Police Protection Force inquiry report also speaks of death caused due to ran over by train.

12.1317.19 FA.doc

4] Tribunal was completely insensitive to the aforesaid evidence

and in most technical and insensitive manner, proceeded to reject the

claim without having regard to the law laid down in aforesaid two

Judgments which is equally binding on this court so also Tribunal.

5] The fact that once the appellant has discharged his burden by

placing on record an affdavit of examination-in-chief, the burden

shifts on respondent-railway authorities to demonstrate that claim

can be rejected as accident could ft into an exception to Section

124A of the Railways Act which respondent has failed to.

6] Though learned counsel for respondent has tried to impress

upon this Court about absence of eye witness to the incident in

question and also railway ticket, however, aforesaid two judgments

have clearly dealt with such eventuality and liability of respondents to

honour the claim for compensation.

12.1317.19 FA.doc

7] Merely because there was absence of eye witness or the travel

ticket was not found on the body or from the scene of the accident,

does not, ifso facto gives a lever to Railway Tribunal to negate the

claim. Rather, Tribunal should have been sensitive to the law as has

been laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in the aforesaid two

judgments.

8] As such, Judgment impugned dated 21/11/2014 passed by

Railways Claims Tribunal in OA (IIu)/MCC/2012/0514 is hereby

quashed and set aside. It is hereby declared that the claimants are

entitled for award of compensation.

9] Claim for award of compensation (only quantum) be decided

forthwith by the Tribunal having regard to the aforesaid fndings

recorded by this Court.

10] Parties hereto agree that they shall appear before the Claims

Tribunal with the copy of this Judgment on 06/09/2021. Tribunal

12.1317.19 FA.doc

shall make every endeavour to award the claim within 12 weeks

thereafter, as the claim is in relation to an accident that has occurred

almost 12 years back and claimant/appellants are denied their

legitimate right.

11] Appeal stands allowed in the above terms.

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]