Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Renuka Paul @ Pal & Ors vs Union Of India on 28 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
28.11.2023
SL No.5
Court No. 551
Ali
FMA 54 of 2023
Renuka Paul @ Pal & Ors.
Vs.
Union of India
Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy,
Ms. Juin Das
....for the appellants.
Mr. Pulakesh Bajpayee
...for the respondent/Union of India.
The instant appeal is preferred against the
Judgment and Order of dismissal passed on 20th
July, 2016 by the Hon'ble Vice Chairman, Railway
Claims Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, in Claim
application No. OA (IIU)/KOL/2012/0347 under
Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987
read with Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989.
The brief facts of the case is that the present
appellant being the claimants preferred a claim
application before the learned tribunal for getting
compensation on the ground that their predecessor,
namely, Ajit Paul while travelling through a local
train fell down due to sudden jerk and sustained
severe bodily injury by such accident and
succumbed to his injury at hospital. That the claim
case was contested by the Railway Authority by
filling written statement.
The learned tribunal after hearing the
parties and after receiving the evidences has
dismissed the claim application.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
said order of dismissal the present appeal has been
preferred by the appellants/claimants.
The learned advocate for the appellants
submits that the observation of the learned tribunal
regarding issue No. 3 is totally erroneous. He
submits that the observation of the learned tribunal
is not based on the record itself. He further submits
that the victim was fell down from the running train
at Bidyadharpur Railway Station and he died due to
the untoward incident so the claimants are entitled
to get the compensation. He further argued that the
learned tribunal has misread the GD Entry No. and
the letter issued by the Inspector of Sealdah GRP, to
the Superintendent of Railway Police Station,
Sealdah. The confusion starts due to the miss
numbering of GD Entry No. in respect of the alleged
accident. He further argued that there are sufficient
materials before the learned tribunal to convince the
case of the claimants but the learned tribunal has
only based upon the note produce by the Railway
Authority wherein it has been mentioned that no
such accident was reported by the concerned
Station Master. He further argued that the learned
tribunal has wrongly decided the fact in issue and
there is a miserable failure of justice.
Learned advocate for the
Respondent/Railway Authority submits that the
learned tribunal has specifically dealt with the fact
in issue and after observing the entire materials very
particularly. The learned tribunal has come to an
opinion that the claimants have failed to prove the
case. He further argued that there is no reason to
believe that the claimant was a bonafide passenger.
He further argued that the evidence of AW-2 cannot
be believed as he is an interested witness. He
further submits that there are no illegality in the
impugned judgment passed by the learned tribunal
so the instant appeal has got on merit.
Heard the learned advocates perused the
materials on record.
The claimants have stated the factum of
accident as follows:-
On 01.07.2012 the husband of appellant No.
1 was travelling from Jadavpur to Kalikapur by one
down train bearing No. SC 34552 with a valid IInd
class railway ticket. Due to sudden jerk, he fell down
from the running train at Bidyadharpur Railway
Station platform No. 2 and got severe injuries all
over his body. Initially, he was removed to
Subhasgram Rural Hospital and thereafter he was
referred to the National Medical College and
Hospital, Kolkata on the same day he expired on
01.07.2012 at about 11.40hrs.
To prove the case the wife of the deceased
i.e. appellant No. 1 adduced as AW-1 she filed some
documents including her identity card etc and with
an attested copy of letter dated 01.07.2012 from
Sonarpur GRPS addressed to Officer-In-Charge
Beniapukur, PS. He also produced the Post Mortem
Report of the deceased including death certificate
and injury report issued by the concerned Hospital.
During cross examination she deposed that she was
not present at the time of accident.
One Yasin Khan was deposed as AW-2
before the learned tribunal who stated before the
learned tribunal that he was travelling with a
deceased in the said train and when he was ready
to get down all on a sudden he found due to sudden
jerk said Ajit Pal fell down from the running train.
The Railway Authority has cross examined the AW-2
and there is only one denial that the statements are
not true. The Railway Authority did not adduce any
witness. The Railway Authority has submitted a
report before the tribunal which was received by the
learned tribunal as a sole evidence on behalf of
the opposite parties.
In deciding the entire case the learned
tribunal has framed as well as 5 (five) issues. He
decided the only issue No. 3 (three) first. "Issue No.
3 (three) is read as follows":-
"whether the victim died in an 'untoward
incident' while making journey by train as defined
under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railway Act, 1989".
The learned tribunal while deciding the issue
has concentrated upon the attested copy of letter
dated 04.07.2016 signed by the Inspector of Sealdah
GRPS address to Superintendent of Railway Police
Station. He perused that the said letter reveals a GD
Entry No. 56 dated 01.07.2012. On perusing the
copy of GD Entry No. 56 it appears that such GD
Entry does not reveal any such untoward incident
register with Sonarpur GRPS. On the basis of such
observation the learned tribunal has placed his
reliance upon the report of the Railway Authority
dated 18th April, 2013 which indicated that the
deceased Ajit Pal was found that Bidyadharpur
Railway Station at platform No. 2 with serious
injured condition but no record for accident from
railway was found neither from Station Manager
Office or SRP at GRPS. SRPS reported no railway
accident. So, the reported with the Station Manager.
So, the report disclosed that there are no such
accident as stated by the claimant.
The claimant has argued before the learned
tribunal that the GD entry No. should be 12 instead
of 56 and in support of their claims he produced the
attested copy of the GD Entry No 12 dated
01.07.2012. Learned tribunal found it is not legible
thus he disbelieved the claim of the case of the
claimant.
In perusing the documents filed before the
learned tribunal it appears to me that the letter
dated 01.07.2012 issued by the Sonarpur GRPS to
the Officer-In-Charge, Beniapukur PS is regarding
furnishing information of the death of one Ajit Pal.
The GD Entry was mentioned as 56 dated
01.07.2012. The information also indicates the
documents i.e. PM report and inquiry report
conducted due to the death of Ajit Pal. The letter
mentioned that Ajit Pal fell down from the running
train being No-SC 34552 down at Bidyadharpur
Railway Station platform No. 2 and got severe
injuries all over his body. It is surprisingly to note
that the Sonarpur GRP GD Entry No.56 was
produced before the learned tribunal it is of dated
02.07.2012 but not dated 01.07.2012. It further
appears to me that the attested copy of GD Entry i.e.
GD Entry No. 12 dated 12.07.2012 though illegible
but the incidental death of Ajit Pal can be very well
found. Moreover, the PM report also disclosed the
cause of death which supports the claimant's case.
Considering the entire record and
considering the materials herein, in my view the
observation of the learned tribunal regarding the
issue No. 3 is not correct. The learned tribunal has
not mentioned anything regarding the
disbelievability of the evidence of AW-2.
It was argued by the learned advocate for the
respondent that AW-2 is an interested witness but I
find no materials in the submission. The AW-2 is
not a relative; AW-2 also not a neighbor of the
deceased. The house of the AW-2 is not within the
village of the deceased thus it cannot be said that
the AW-2 is not interested witness. Moreover, the
Railway Authority has failed to put a single question
to AW-2 during his cross examination to shake the
credit of eve witness.
The learned tribunal also not seen the report
of GRPS regarding wrong mention of G.D. No.
Considering the same I am of the view that
the observation of the learned tribunal in issue No. 3
is not correct. It has been categorically proved by the
claimants that the deceased was died in an
untoward incident while he was travelling in the
running train and fell down at the time of sudden
jerk. He fell down from the running train at
Bidyadharpur Railway Station platform No. 2 and
got severe injuries and succumbed to his injuries at
the hospital. The failure of Station Manager to
record the accident shall not falsify the case of the
claimant.
In considering the other issues regarding the
issue No. 2 that whether the victim was a bonafide
passenger or not; it appears that no railway ticket
was found from the possession of the deceased. The
railway has also not filed any case against the
deceased to be a trespasser within the Railway
platform. Moreover, the plea of the claim of the
claimants was not specifically denied by the Railway
Authority by filling written statement or evidence to
that effect. Whether a particular person is a
bonafide passenger or not that has to be proved by
the Railway Authority by virtue of the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rina Devi. Considering
the same, I find that the instant appeal has got on
merit and the claimants are entitled to get the
compensation.
In considering the quantum of compensation
in this case the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
passed in Rina Devi as well as Radha Yadav is
followed and in following such observation and
direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It appears
to me that the instant claim application was filed
prior to the amendment so the claimants are entitled
to get the award of compensation amounting to Rs.
4,00,000/- under Section 124-A of Railway Act
alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim application i.e. from 31.07.2012. If
the award of compensation alongwith the interest
come to below Rs.8,00,000/- by virtue of decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Rina Devi and
Radha Yadav the compensation would be at least
Rs.8,00,000/-is the award alongwith interest is
calculated beyond Rs.8,00,000/- the higher amount
of award shall be given in this case.
Accordingly, the respondent/Railway
Authority is directed to pay the compensation
alongwith the interest as directed above through the
office of the learned Registrar General, High Court,
Calcutta within six weeks from the date of passing of
this order. On such deposit the office of the learned
Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta shall
disburse the amount in the name of the claimants
through separate three equal account payee cheques
after taking note that the minor claimants have
already attained majority.
The instant FMA 54 of 2023 is disposed of.
All connected applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.
Parties to act upon the server copy and
urgent certified copy of this order be provided on
usual terms and conditions.
(Subhendu Samanta, J.)
