Bombay High Court
The Union Of India, General Manager, ... vs Sushma W/O Ramkrushna Choudhari And ... on 29 January, 2024
Author: G. A. Sanap
Bench: G. A. Sanap
2024:BHC-NAG:1664
-1- 904 fa 1363.18.jud..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1363 OF 2018
APPELLANT : The Union of India,
(Original respondent on General Manager Western Railway,
RA)
Churchgate, Mumbai
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENT : 1. Sushma w/o Ramkrushna Choudhari,
(Original applicant on RA) Aged 45 years, Occ.- Nil
2. Deepika D/o Ramkrushna Choudhari,
Aged 21 years, Occ. Student
3. Nilima D/o Ramkrushna Choudhari,
Aged 18 years, Occ. Student
4. Bhagwan s/o Narayan Choudhari,
Aged 70 years, Occ. Nil,
5. Manubai w/o Bhagwan Choudhari
Aged 65 years, Occu. Nil
All R/o Amalgaon, Tq. Amalner, Dist.
Jalgaon, Maharashtra, 425401
**************************************************************
Mrs. Neeraja Chaubey, Advocate for appellant.
**************************************************************
CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
DATED : 29th JANUARY, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
-2- 904 fa 1363.18.jud..odt
1. In this appeal, filed under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, "the Act of 1987"), the
challenge is to the judgment and order dated 08.03.2017 in the
main claim application and order dated 14.03.2018 in review
application passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench,
Nagpur whereby the claim filed by the respondents/claimants for
compensation under Section 16 of the Act of 1987 was allowed.
2. Background facts:-
Respondent No.1 is the wife of the deceased.
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are children of the deceased. Respondent
Nos.4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. It is stated that on
13.11.2013 the deceased was travelling from Jalgaon to Bardoli by
Bhusawal-Surat Passenger Train No.59078 after purchasing a
valid journey ticket. The deceased, according to the respondents,
fell from a moving train between KM No.209/16 - 210/01 near
Shindkheda Railway Station yard. He died due to injuries
sustained in the accident. According to the claimants, the death
was in an untoward incident. Therefore, they claimed the
compensation.
-3- 904 fa 1363.18.jud..odt
3. The appellant-railway filed the written statement and
opposed the claim. It is contended that death was not in an
untoward incident. The deceased was run over by a train while
crossing the railway line. The learned Member of the Tribunal, on
consideration of the evidence accepted the claim and directed the
railway to pay the compensation. The appellant-railway, being
aggrieved by the judgment and order has come before this Court in
appeal.
4. I have heard Mrs. Neeraja Chaubey, learned Advocate
for the appellant. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 though served have
failed to appear before this Court. Perused the record and
proceedings.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances following points
fall for my determination.
i) Whether the deceased was travelling in Bhusawal-Surat
Passenger Train No.59078 as a bona fide passenger with a valid
journey ticket?
ii) Whether the deceased died in an untoward incident as
understood by Section 123 clause (c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989?
-4- 904 fa 1363.18.jud..odt
6. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that a
ticket was found on the person of the deceased at the time of
panchanama. Learned Advocate submitted that merely because of
this, it could not be presumed that the death was due to fall from a
moving train and as such, in an untoward incident. Learned
Advocate submitted that the dead body was cut into two parts. It is
submitted that it is suggestive of the fact that the deceased was run
over by some train while crossing the railway line. Learned
Advocate submitted that the Member of the Tribunal has not
properly appreciated the evidence and has come to a wrong
conclusion.
7. In order to appreciate the submissions advanced by
learned Advocate for the appellant, I have gone through the record
and proceedings. The deceased was travelling from Bhusawal to
Bardoli by Bhusawal-Surat Passenger Train No.59078. The dead
body was found in the yard between two railway tracks. The body
was cut into two parts. Similarly, there were other injuries on the
parts of the body of deceased. It is undisputed that after this
incident, Station Master made a report to the police. At the time of
panchanama, the police recovered a journey ticket for Rs.50/-
purchased on 13.11.2013 for journey from Jalgaon to Bardoli. The
-5- 904 fa 1363.18.jud..odt
time of purchase of the ticket is mentioned on the ticket. The time
and place of the accident and other connected evidence clearly
indicate that the deceased was travelling with a valid journey ticket
by Bhusawal-Surat Passenger train.
8. The next important issue is whether the death was in an
untoward incident, as stated by the claimants/respondents. The
perusal of the materials placed on record and the order passed by
the learned Member of the Tribunal would show that on this
count, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of fact
arrived at by the Member of the Tribunal. The loco pilot of the
Bhusawal-Surat Passenger train reported that no passenger was run
over by his train at the spot of the incident. Undisputedly, the
train departed from Shindkheda Railway Station at 3.16 p.m.
and immediately, thereafter, there was chain pulling. After chain
pulling, the train left the said spot on 3.23 p.m. It has come on
record, in the report of the Ranjan Kumar Mallick (RW-1), that
immediately after the departure of the train he was informed that
one passenger was run over by the said train. Learned Member of
the Tribunal has disbelieved the case of the railway on this point.
Undisputedly, the deceased was travelling by Bhusawal-Surat
Passenger train. In view of this, the deceased could not have been
-6- 904 fa 1363.18.jud..odt
run over by Bhusawal-Surat Passenger train. It is also not the case
of the railway that he was run over by another train. There is no
report by the loco pilot of the next train about run over of any
passenger by his train on the said spot. Learned Advocate for the
appellant-railway, on the basis of the injuries sustained by the
deceased submitted that in case of fall from the train, the body
could not have been cut in two parts. In my view, on the basis of
these injuries, a conclusion of run over of deceased by the said train
cannot be drawn. The possibility of the deceased getting
entangled, at the time of fall, in any part of the train and thereby
coming under the wheels and getting crushed could not be ruled
out. There was no eye witness to the incident. In this case,
therefore, the possibility of deceased being run over by this train
has been completely ruled out. Learned Member of the Tribunal
has made threadbare analysis of the evidence on record and has
accepted the claim.
9. In this case, in the teeth of the material placed on record,
the defence of negligence or contributory negligence would not be
available to the railway. The deceased, as can be seen from the
material placed on record, was travelling by this train. The only
possibility that has been established on the basis of the evidence is
-7- 904 fa 1363.18.jud..odt
that while travelling in the said train, he would have lost his
balance and fallen from the moving train and died. In this case, the
first part of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short "the
Act of 1989) would get attracted. In the teeth of the undisputed
facts and evidence, it is not possible to conclude that the case
would fall under any of the clauses of proviso to Section 124-A of
the Act of 1989. I do not see any reason to interfere with the
finding of fact recorded by the learned Member of the Tribunal. It
is seen that in the review application, the order was passed on
14.03.2018 and the appellant-railway was directed to pay
compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Only). It is to
be noted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Union of India vs. Radha Yadav reported at
[(2019) 3 SCC 410] learned Member was justified in awarding the
compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Only). I do not
see any reason to interfere with this order.
10. As such, I record my findings on both the points in
affirmative. The appeal deserves to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
-8- 904 fa 1363.18.jud..odt
12. The appellant shall pay/deposit amount of compensation
of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Only) if it is not already paid/
deposited.
13. The First Appeal stands disposed of. No order as to
costs. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(G. A. SANAP, J.)
manisha
Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/02/2024 11:00:27
