Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 11 November, 2024
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010190652023
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5059/2023
NITU SINHA AND 3 ORS.
W/O- LATE RAKESH KR. SINHA
2: NILAM SINHA
MOTHER OF LATE RAKESH KR. SINHA
3: AARTI SINHA
SISTER OF LATE RAKESH KR. SINHA
4: ROSHAN KUMAR SINHA
BROTHER OF LATE RAKESH KR. SINHA
ALL ARE R/O VILLAGE NO-2
PADUM NAGAR
NIZ KADAMANI
P.O/P.S- DIBRUGARH
DIST- DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-78600
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.
REP . BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ,
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (RAILWAY BOARD), RAIL BHAWAN, RAISINA
ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN-110001
2:THE GENERAL MANAGER
NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
MALIGAON
SHUTTLE GATE
Page No.# 2/7
GUWAHATI
ASAM
PIN-781011
3:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER
NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
MALIGAON
SHUTTLE GATE
GUWAHATI
ASAM
PIN-781011
4:THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER
NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
NEAR RAILWAY OVERBRIDGE
NH-52B
TINSUKIA
PIN-78612
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. D. Saikia, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondents : Mr. C. K. S. Baruah, Advocate
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Date of Hearing : 11.11.2024
Date of Judgment : 11.11.2024
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. D. Saikia, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners and Mr. C. K. S. Baruah, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the Railway Administration.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners
who claim to be the legal representatives of one Rakesh Kumar
Page No.# 3/7
Sinha (since deceased) seeking compensation to the tune of
Rs.40,00,000/- on account of the death of Late Rakesh Kumar
Sinha in connection with DBRT/GRP/OP vide G.D.E. No.356 dated
26.11.2022 corresponding to Tinsukia GRPS U/D Case
No.75/2022.
3. The facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition is
that Late Rakesh Kumar Sinha while was returning from school
on 26.11.2022 met with an accident at KM-3/0 - 3/2 at 12:15 PM
between JM/DBRG to GRP/DBRT and succumbed to his injuries.
The petitioners thereupon submitted a representation before the
Divisional Railway Manager Tinsukia as well as the General
Manager, North East Railway, Maligaon with a prayer to pay
compensation against the death of Late Rakesh Kumar Sinha
which as per the petitioner was caused due to complete violation
of all the norms of railway level crossing at KM-3/0 - 3/2 in
respect to the Tinsukia GRPS U/D Case No.75/2022. However,
those representations having gone unredressed, the petitioners
have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.
4. It is seen that pursuant to the issuance of notice, affidavit-
in-opposition has been filed by respondent No.2 wherein it has
been categorically mentioned that there was negligence which
led to the death of Late Rakesh Kumar Sinha. It was further
mentioned that the unfortunate death of Late Rakesh Kumar
Page No.# 4/7
Sinha was due to the illegal trespassing of the railway track as
the crossing at KM-3/0 - 3/2 which was unauthorized. It was
further mentioned that under Section 147 of the Railways Act,
1989, any person found trespassing the railway track would be
liable for prosecution which entails punishment with
imprisonment for a term upto 6 months or with fine of
Rs.1,000/- or both. Under such circumstances, it was therefore
stated that the question of payment of compensation do not
arise.
5. To the said affidavit-in-opposition, a reply has been filed by
the petitioners to the effect that the respondents have duly
admitted that it is a death case of run over and knock down as
per the Station Master's report as well as the police report
submitted by the in-Charge, Dibrugarh, GRPO. It was decided
that Late Rakesh Kumar Sinha had made illegal trespassing on
the railway track in as much as the said allegations in the
affidavit-in-opposition is contrary to the report of the Station
Master and the police report. It was also decided that the
untoward incident which had taken place was due to illegal
trespassing of the railway track.
6. This Court on the basis of the materials on record enquired
with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
as to how the instant proceedings would be maintainable taking
Page No.# 5/7
into account that the fact as to whether there was an illegal
trespassing or not are question of facts which can only be
adjudicated in the proceedings wherein evidence can be led.
7. Mr. C. K. S. Baruah, the counsel appearing on behalf of the
Railways submitted that the petitioners ought to avail remedy
before the Railway Claims Tribunal in terms of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, 'the Act of 1987'). The learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners on the other hand
submitted that the question of approaching the Railway Claims
Tribunal do not arise taking into account that the jurisdiction that
can be exercised by the Railway Claims Tribunal is when a case
falls within the ambit of Section 13 of the Act of 1987. He
therefore submitted that the writ proceedings herein is the
appropriate remedy for which the petitioners have approached
this Court.
8. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties and upon
perusal of the materials on record, it transpires that the
jurisdiction of the Railway Claims Tribunal have been
categorically mentioned in Section 13 of the Act of 1987. From
the perusal of Sub-section 1 (a) and 1 (b) of Section 13 of the
Act of 1987, it transpires that the dispute in the present case
would not be covered within the fold of Section 13 of the Act of
1987 in as much as the dispute herein arises on account of an
Page No.# 6/7
accident which took place while crossing a railway line by a
person who was not a passenger within the meaning of Section
124A of the Railways Act, 1989. Under such circumstances, the
question of the petitioners approaching the Railway Claims
Tribunal for compensation does not arise.
9. Be that as it may, a question however arises as to whether
this Court would be in the position to exercise its jurisdiction
taking into account that there are disputed questions of facts as
to whether Late Rakesh Kumar Sinha had illegally trespassed
upon the Railway tracks which have been averred by the
respondents in the affidavit-in-opposition. In the opinion of this
Court, such factual disputes can only be adjudicated in a proper
forum wherein evidence can be led. Apart from that, the
question of determining the compensation has also to be decided
on the basis of evidence.
10. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit
case which should be entertained under Article 226 of the
Constitution for which the instant writ petition therefore stands
dismissed on being not entertained.
11. Before parting with the report, this Court however makes it
clear that the dismissal of the writ petition on being not
entertained shall not preclude the petitioners to approach the
Page No.# 7/7
competent Civil Court seeking compensation, if they are
aggrieved. In addition to that, this Court also observes that the
period from 24.08.2023 till today be excluded while computing
the period of limitation.
12. With the above observations and directions, the instant writ
petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
