Bombay High Court
Yashodabai Wd/O Bapurao Gokhare And ... vs Union Of India Thr. General Manager, ... on 4 January, 2024
Author: G. A. Sanap
Bench: G. A. Sanap
2024:BHC-NAG:258
904.fa.596.2018 judge.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 596 OF 2018
1. Yashodabai Wd/o. Bapurao Gokhare,
Aged about 49 Yrs., Occu.: Household,
2. Sanjay S/o. Bapurao Ghokhare,
Aged about 33 Yrs., Occu.: Cultivator,
Both R/o. C/o. Bandu Ujwalkar, Lords
Tailor, Ambedkar Chowk, Maregaon,
Distt. Yavatmal .... APPELLANTS
// V E R S U S //
Union of India,
Through the General Manager,
Central Railway, Mumbai,
C.S.T., Mumbai ... RESPONDENT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr K. P. Mirache, Advocate for the appellants
Ms Neerja Choubey, Advocate for the respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
DATE : 04/01/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 In this appeal, filed under Section 23 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short "the Act of
1987"), challenge is to the judgment and order dated
05.10.2015 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur
904.fa.596.2018 judge.odt
Bench, Nagpur, whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the
claim application filed by the appellants/claimants.
2 Background facts:-
Appellant No.1 is the wife and appellant No. 2 is
the son of deceased Bapurao Gokhare. It is stated that the
deceased died in an untoward incident on 27.04.2010 while
traveling in unknown passenger train from Pandharpur to
Warora. He was having a valid journey ticket. He fell from
running train at Sawastar Railway Station due to sudden jerk.
He sustained injuries and died. It is stated that the deceased
was bonafide passenger. The death was in an untoward
incident. They therefore claimed the compensation.
3 Respondent-Railway has filed the written
statement and opposed the claim application. According to the
respondent, the death was not in an untoward incident. The
904.fa.596.2018 judge.odt
deceased, according to the respondent, was roaming at railway
station and due to his negligence he was dashed by goods train
engine. He died due to the injury sustained in the said dash.
He was not having a valid journey ticket. He was not a
bonafide passenger.
4 The parties adduced the evidence before the
Tribunal. The learned Member of the Tribunal, on
appreciation of the evidence, found that the claim was without
substance because the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as
well as death was not in an untoward incident. Being
aggrieved by the judgment and order, the appellants have
come before this Court.
5 I have heard learned Advocate Mr K. P. Mirache
for the appellants and learned Advocate Ms Neeraja Choubey
for the respondent. Perused the record and proceedings.
904.fa.596.2018 judge.odt
6 In view of the facts and circumstances following
points fall for my determination.
i) Whether the deceased died due to injuries
sustained due to fall from running train and as such, the death
was in an untoward incident ?
ii) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger
on a train with the valid journey ticket ?
7 Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that
the Railway Claims Tribunal has committed patent illegality
while rejecting the claim application. Learned Advocate
submitted that there is ample evidence on record to prove that
the deceased was a bonafide passenger as well as the death was
in an untoward incident. Learned Advocate pointed out that
the journey ticket placed on record has not been properly
appreciated by the Railway Claims Tribunal. Learned
Advocate submitted that there is ample evidence to prove that
the dead body of the deceased was found in the railway
904.fa.596.2018 judge.odt
premises and as such, the inference has to be drawn that the
death was in an untoward incident. Learned Advocate
submitted that the deceased with two other co-passengers was
traveling in the passenger train from Pandharpur to Warora
and at the Sawastar Railway Station he fell from running train.
Learned Advocate submitted that this fact has been proved by
the railway journey tickets produced on record. Learned
Advocate submitted that the Railway Tribunal has committed
error while rejecting the claim.
8 Learned Advocate for the respondent supported
the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. Learned
Advocate submitted that there is ample oral and documentary
evidence to support the defence of the respondent that the
deceased was dashed by the engine of the goods train at the
railway station and as such, the death was not in an untoward
incident. Learned Advocate further submitted that the
evidence adduced by the appellants as well as the facts stated in
904.fa.596.2018 judge.odt
the application are conspicuously silent about the remaining
two co-passengers who had undertaken the journey with the
deceased from Pandharpur to Warora. Learned Advocate
pointed out that therefore the inference of manipulation of the
journey tickets drawn by the Tribunal is fully justified.
Learned Advocate further pointed out that in the absence of
examination of the two co-passengers the appellants were
required to place on record plausible explanation.
9 In order to appreciate the rival submissions I have
minutely perused the record and proceedings. On going
through the record and proceedings I am constrained to
observe that the Railway Claims Tribunal has not committed
any error or mistake while rejecting the claim application. The
findings of fact, recorded by the claims Tribunal, are supported
by the cogent reasons on the basis of the material on record.
10 AW-1 was not an eye witness to the incident. He
904.fa.596.2018 judge.odt
was informed on 29.04.2010 by the Railway Administration
about the death of the deceased which took place on
27.04.2010. In my view, this statement of a fact made by the
appellants fully supports the defence of the respondent. It is
not the case of the appellants that the co-passengers of the
deceased had informed them about the accidental fall of the
deceased while traveling with them in a particular train. The
names of the co-passengers have not been stated either in the
application or in the evidence. If the case was as stated by the
appellants then the co-passengers, who were traveling with the
composite tickets with the deceased, would have informed the
appellants about the untoward incident. How the journey
ticket came in custody of the appellants has not been
explained. It has not been stated either in the application or in
the evidence that the co-passengers had handed over the
journey ticket to them. If the journey ticket was handed over
to the appellants by two co-passengers then the appellants were
904.fa.596.2018 judge.odt
expected to mention their names. In my view, this fact creates
a doubt about the very foundation of the claim of the
appellants.
11 AW-1 in his cross examination has admitted that
he was not traveling with the deceased. He has admitted that
the deceased was traveling alone. He has admitted that the two
journey tickets produced by him are for three adult passengers/
persons. He has further admitted that he does not know
whether the deceased had purchased the journey ticket or not.
The journey tickets were not admittedly found on the person
of the deceased at the time of inquest panchanama. It would
be necessary in this context to see the evidence of the
respondent-railway.
12 Railway has examined one witness. The witness
examined by railway has made a reference to the report made
by the railway station master at Sawastar Railway station,
904.fa.596.2018 judge.odt
Kopargaon. The said report is dated 28.04.2010. In his
evidence, he has stated that at the relevant time he was
working as a Deputy Station Superintendent, Kanhegaon
Railway Station. He has further stated that he received the
information about the dash of one unknown person at about
21.45 hours by the driver of 13060 +18713 Goods train Miraj
BTPN at K.M. No. 459 Near Gate No. 65 at Sawastar station
(Halt Station) between Kopargaon-Kanhegaon railway station.
The report of the railway station master at page A-60 (Exh.
AW-1/2) and the evidence of RW-1 is consistent. The
evidence of RW-1 is further supported by Exh. R-1 at Page 80.
Exh. R-1 is the report made by the loco pilot of the Goods
Train. Perusal of this report would show that the deceased was
dashed by the goods train engine at about 21:19 hours. This
report is also consistent with the report of the Railway Station
Master at Sawastar Railway station. The railway station master
in his report has stated that on 27.04.2010 at about 5:30 p.m.,
904.fa.596.2018 judge.odt
Daud Manmad Passenger train departed from Sawastar
Railway station. One passenger had alighted from the said
train at Sawastar railway station. He inquired with the said
passenger about his name etc. but he did not talk to him. The
report further states that at 09:30 p.m. the railway station
master heard the commotion at railway station and therefore,
he came to the railway station from his official residence which
is near to railway station and saw that the said person whom he
met at 5:30 p.m. was found dead at the platform with multiple
injuries. In my view, this oral and documentary evidence
clearly indicates that the passenger train by which the deceased
was traveling departed from the said railway station at 5:30
p.m. The deceased had alighted from the said train at Sawastar
Railway station. He sustained the dash of the goods train
engine at 9:19 p.m. This fact has been fully established by the
oral and documentary evidence.
13 Learned Advocate for the appellants relied upon
904.fa.596.2018 judge.odt
the decision in the case of Mukta Wd/o. Narayan Kurtadikar
and others .v/s. Union of India (First Appeal No. 282 of 2020
decided on 20.08.2022) and submitted that in the similar set
of facts the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has accepted the
claim application and awarded the compensation. I have gone
through the judgment relied upon by the learned Advocate.
The facts of this appeal and the facts of the decision relied
upon by the learned Advocate are not even similar. Therefore,
this decision is of no help and assistance to the case of the
appellants. The evidence on record adduced by the appellants
is not sufficient to prove that the deceased was a bonafide
passenger traveling by a passenger train. The appellants have
also failed to prove that the deceased died due to fall from
running train and as such, the death was in an untoward
incident. Accordingly, I record findings on both the points in
the negative. Learned Railway Tribunal has properly
appreciated the material placed on record and on doing so
904.fa.596.2018 judge.odt
recorded findings against the appellants. I do not see any
substance in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(G. A. SANAP, J.)
Namrata
Signed by: Miss Namrata Suryawanshi
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/01/2024 14:35:28
