Bombay High Court
Union Of India, Through The General ... vs Tabassum Parveen W/O Adil Shah And 4 ... on 10 January, 2024
Author: G. A. Sanap
Bench: G. A. Sanap
2024:BHC-NAG:858
901.fa.168.2012 judge railway.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 168 OF 2012
The Union of India,
through the General Manager,
Central Railway,
CST MUMBAI. .... APPELLANT
// V E R S U S //
1. Tabassum Parvin W/o. Adil Shah,
Aged about 30 Years, Occ. Household & Labor,
2. Arif Shah S/o. Adil Shah,
Aged about 12 Years, Occ. Education.
3. Sharikh Shah S/o. Adil Shah,
Aged about 10 Years, Occ. Education.
4. Adnan Shah S/o. Adil Shah,
Aged about 8 Years, Occ. Education.
5. Ashfakh Shah S/o. Adil Shah,
Aged about 7 Years, Occ. Education.
Applicant/respondent Nos. 2 to 5
are minors through their natural
guardian respondent No.1
All R/o. Wazirabad, behind Gadekar
Bhavan, Balapur, Tah. Balapur,
District Akola ... RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Neerja Choubey, Advocate for the appellant
Ms Uma Bhattad, Advocate for the respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
DATE : 10th JANUARY 2024
901.fa.168.2012 judge railway.odt
2
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 Heard finally with the consent of learned
Advocates for the parties.
2 This appeal, filed under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, 'the Act of 1987),
challenges the judgment and order dated 27.08.2010, passed
by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, at Nagpur,
whereby the claim filed by the respondents/claimants came to
be allowed.
3 Background facts:
Respondent No.1 is the wife of the deceased, and
respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are the children of the deceased. It is
the case of the respondents/claimants that the incident
occurred on 16.04.2005. The deceased had to travel to
Wardha from Akola. It is stated that there was a heavy rush on
the train, and while boarding the train, he fell down on the
901.fa.168.2012 judge railway.odt
platform. He sustained the injuries and died. He was a bona
fide passenger traveling with a valid journey ticket. The death
was in an untoward incident.
4 The appellant-railway filed the written statement
and opposed the claim. It is contended that the dead body was
found on the steps of foot over bridge near platform No.2 of
the Akola railway station. The deceased was not having the
journey ticket. The death, according to the railway, was
therefore not in an untoward incident.
5 The parties adduced the evidence before the
Tribunal. Learned Member of the Tribunal, on consideration
of the evidence, recorded the findings in favor of the
respondents and allowed the claim. The appellant-railway
being aggrieved by this judgment and order is before this
Court in appeal.
901.fa.168.2012 judge railway.odt
6 I have heard learned Advocate Mrs. Neerja
Choubey for the appellant-railway and learned Advocate Mrs.
Uma Bhattad for the respondents. I have perused the record
and proceedings.
7 In the facts and circumstances, the following points
fall for my determination:
(i) Whether the deceased died in an untoward
incident as understood by the provisions of Section
123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989?
(ii) Whether the deceased was a bona fide
passenger travelling with a valid journey ticket?
8 Learned Advocate for the appellant-railway
submitted that the evidence on record clearly indicates that the
deceased died a natural death on foot over bridge. Learned
Advocate submitted that the train in question was late by half
an hour, and therefore, the case of the respondents that the
901.fa.168.2012 judge railway.odt
deceased fell down while boarding the train in question is
unacceptable. The learned Advocate submitted that the cause
of death, as can be seen from the postmortem report, is not
conclusive. Learned Advocate submitted that the dead body
was not found on platform No. 2 and therefore, the possibility
of death while boarding the train has been completely ruled
out in this case. Learned Advocate therefore submitted that the
Member of the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the
available evidence on record and has come to the wrong
conclusion. Learned Advocate submitted that merely because
the railway ticket was with the deceased, he could not be said
to be a bona fide passenger of any particular train.
9 Learned Advocate for the respondents/claimants
submitted that the Member of the Tribunal has properly
appreciated the evidence available on record and has come to a
just and proper conclusion. Learned Advocate pointed out that
901.fa.168.2012 judge railway.odt
the journey ticket for a journey by passenger train from Akola
to Wardha was recovered from the pocket of the deceased at
the time of panchanama. Learned Advocate submitted that the
time of the purchase of the ticket and the date of the ticket
would clearly indicate that for the purpose of journey from
Akola to Wardha, the deceased had come to platform No.2 of
Akola Railway Station. Learned Advocate submitted that dead
body was found on platform No.2 and therefore, the
contention of the appellant-railway that the death was not in
an untoward incident cannot be accepted. Learned Advocate
took me through the postmortem report, particularly column
No. 17 of the said report and pointed out that the deceased
had sustained injuries to his head and according to the medical
officer, the injuries were ante mortem in nature. Learned
Advocate therefore submitted that the contention of the
railway that the deceased died due to a breathing problem has
not been supported by the medical evidence. Learned
901.fa.168.2012 judge railway.odt
Advocate submitted that the evidence of RW-1 was rightly
rejected by the Member of the Tribunal. Learned Advocate
submitted that the learned Member of the Tribunal has
properly appreciated the evidence on record and has accepted
the claim of the respondents.
10 In order to appreciate the rival submissions, I have
gone through the record and proceedings. It is undisputed that
at the time of Panchanama, the journey ticket for the journey
from Akola to Wardha was recovered from the pocket of the
deceased. Similarly, other articles/goods carried by the
deceased were also found. The dead body was found on
platform No.2. In my view, therefore, the finding recorded by
the learned Member of the Tribunal that the deceased was a
bona fide passenger having the valid journey ticket is
supported by the evidence on record. It is also not the case of
the appellant-railway that the ticket was manipulated or
901.fa.168.2012 judge railway.odt
planted for some reason or another. The evidence on record is
sufficient to accept the case of the respondents, that after
purchasing the railway ticket for a journey from Akola to
Wardha, deceased had come to platform No. 2. The dead body
was found on platform No. 2. The deceased had sustained
injuries. The passenger train had departed from Akola railway
station much prior to resuming duty by RW-1. Therefore, the
possibility of the deceased boarding the train and, in the
process, falling on platform No.2 has been fully supported by
the evidence. The appellant-railway has not adduced evidence
in rebuttal to discharge the burden cast on it.
11 As far as the case of the railway that the deceased
was found dead on the steps of a foot over bridge is concerned,
the same has not been supported by the material on record.
The spot panchanama clearly indicates that the dead body was
found on platform No. 2. If the deceased had fallen while
901.fa.168.2012 judge railway.odt
descending the foot over bridge then he would have sustained
multiple injuries. If the deceased had sat on the over bridge or
the steps of the foot over bridge due to his health problem, as
suggested by the railway, then he would not have sustained an
injury to his head. The dead body was found in the railway
premises. In this factual position, the applicability of the
provisions of Sections 124-A and 123(c) of the Railways Act,
1989, would be required to be considered. The contention of
the railway can be accepted, provided the railway is successful
in establishing any of the clauses to proviso to Section 124A.
In this case, the railway has not been able to bring its case
under any of the clauses to proviso to Section 124A. This
would therefore obviously indicate that the case of the
respondents would fall under the first part of Section 124A. In
view of this, the railway cannot avoid its responsibility to pay
compensation to the respondents.
901.fa.168.2012 judge railway.odt
12 In this case, the deceased was travelling with a valid
journey ticket. He was a bona fide passenger. The dead body
was found on the railway premises. The time gap between the
purchase of the ticket and the death clearly indicates that the
deceased had come to the platform to board a passenger train
to go to Wardha. Learned Member of the Tribunal in the facts
and circumstances, was right in holding that the death in this
case was in an untoward incident. On re-appreciation of the
material placed on record, I am satisfied that no interference is
warranted in the findings of fact recorded by the learned
Member of the Tribunal. Accordingly, I record my findings on
the above points in the affirmative. The appeal deserves to be
dismissed as being without substance.
13 Learned Advocates for the parties submit that, in
view of the Notification issued by the Ministry of Railways
(Railway Board) dated 22.12.2016 which came into effect
from 01.01.2017, in case of a death claim, the claimants/
901.fa.168.2012 judge railway.odt
respondents are entitled to get compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-
(Rupees Eight Lacs only). Before the issuance of this
notification, in case of a death claim, the compensation
provided was Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs only). As per
the old provisions, the claimants/respondents would have been
entitled to get Rs.4,00,000/-. Learned Advocates drew my
attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union
of India .vs. Radha Yadav 1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that in case of old claim after this notification,
the claimants/respondents would be entitled to get
compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- without interest if the
compensation provided earlier with interest is less than
Rs.8,00,000/-. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted
that the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest should
not be more than Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, in this case, the
claimants/ respondents would be entitled to get Rs. 8,00,000/-
(Rupees Eight Lacs only), without interest.
1 (2019) 3 SCC 410
901.fa.168.2012 judge railway.odt
14 Accordingly, the first appeal stands dismissed.
15 The appellant is directed to pay Rs.8,00,000/-
(Rupees Eight Lacs Only) towards compensation to the
respondents.
16 It is pointed out that in terms of the order of this
Court, the appellant has deposited Rs. 4,63,857/- (Rs. Four
Lacs Sixty Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Seven
only) in this Court. Now the appellant-railway would be
required to deposit the balance compensation amount of
Rs.3,36,143/- (Rs. Three Lacs Thirty Six Thousand One
Hundred and Forty Three only).
17 The balance amount of Rs.3,36,143/- shall be
deposited within four months from the date of uploading the
judgment and order with the Registry of this Court. If the
901.fa.168.2012 judge railway.odt
amount is not deposited within four months, the amount shall
carry interest @ of 6% p.a. from the date of this order until
realization of the amount.
18 It is further pointed out that the respondents have
withdrawn 50% of the amount, i.e. Rs. 2,31,928 (Rupees Two
Lacs Thirty One Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Eight
only), from the deposited amount of Rs. 4,63,857/-.
19 After depositing the balance amount, the
respondents are permitted to withdraw the balance amount
and the amount lying deposited in this Court, with accrued
interest, if any.
20 The entitlement of the respondents to get a share
of the amount shall be as directed by the Tribunal.
901.fa.168.2012 judge railway.odt
21 The First appeal stands disposed of. No order as to
costs. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(G. A. SANAP, J.)
Namrata
Signed by: Miss Namrata Suryawanshi
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 22/01/2024 17:37:15
