Jharkhand High Court
Arati Tudu vs Union Of India on 1 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 20 of 2020
......
Arati Tudu ...... Appellant
Versus
Union of India, through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
For the Appellant : Ms. Chaitali C. Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Advocate
-----
04/Dated: 01/02/2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
The instant Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the claimant, Arati
Tudu, where claim application has been dismissed, vide judgment dated 20.12.2018
passed by Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case
No.OA(IIU)/RNC/95/2016, as no ticket has been found from the possession of the
deceased, the learned Tribunal has held that deceased (Parbati Marandi) was not a
bonafide passenger, but other issues with regard to untoward incident and with
regard to the compensation have not been discussed by the learned Railway Claims
Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that on the basis of fardbeyan
of one Mahendra Mahto (Track man Unit-05 Jamtara) an FIR has been lodged
stating therein that unknown lady aged about 65 to 70 years was found near the
Railway kilometer No.246/27 & 246/29 on 03.04.2016 and from perusal of the dead-
body of the deceased, it appears that lady has fallen down from the train and died.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the evidence of
A.W.-1 (Arati Tudu) has been brought on record as Annexure-3, paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9 and 10 of which are profitably quoted hereunder:-
"2. That on 03.04.2016 after purchasing & having a valid 2 nd class ticket for
Durgapur Station to Jhajha Station my deceased mother namely Parbati
Marandi @ Parbati Tudu boarded in some train at Durgapur Station for going
to Jhajha Station.
3. That there was heavy rush in the said train, which compelled my deceased
mother to stand near the gate inside the bogie. The passengers were jostling one
another for space near the gate of the bogie.
4. That in route while the said train was running near Jamtara Station my
deceased old aged mother who was standing near the gate inside the bogie
accidentally fell down from the running train between Rly. K.M. No.246/27 &
246/29 due to intense jostling amongst the passengers near the gate of the bogie
on account of heavy rush.
5. That as a result of which may deceased mother sustained serious injuries &
died on the spot.
6. That when my deceased mother did not return back her home then I, the
applicant started to search her along with my family members & during
searching I came to know about the incident through News-paper on 05.04.2016
and accordingly I, reached at Rail P.S. Madhupur along with family members,
where I identified my deceased mother as Parbati Marandi @ Parbati Tudu by
seeing her photograph and cloths.
7. That on the basis of fardbayan of Mahendra Mahto, track man of Jamtara
Station and U.D. Case No.15/16 has registered at Rail P.S. Madhupur on
03.04.2016.
8. That the Rail Police investigated the matter and found that the factum of
incident is true & my deceased mother died due to aforesaid untoward incident
by accidental fall from the said running train.
9. That my father (husband of the deceased) has already died and I (applicant)
am the lonely dependent on my deceased mother as mentioned in PART-I of the
claim application.
10. That the said valid ticket of my deceased mother has lost during the said
untoward incident."
Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that impugned
judgment may be set aside.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that deceased was a
bonafide passenger in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572, para 29
profitably quoted herein:-
"29. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not
negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on
the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts
and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the
facts shown or the attending circumstances."
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that in view of the
fardbeyan of the Track man, it was an untoward incident, as such, finding
recorded by the learned Tribunal may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there is delay
of 298 days in preferring the appeal and for condonation of the same, I.A.
No.3761 of 2020 has been preferred.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Railway has submitted that by way of last
chance, one more indulgence may be granted to the Railway as because of pandemic
Covid-19, counter-affidavit could not be filed and further submitted that L.C.R. may
be called for.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the facts and
circumstances, call for the LCR from the court of Member/Technical, Railway
Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in Case No.OA(IIU)/RNC/95/2016.
In the meantime, learned counsel for the respondent-Railway is directed to
file counter-affidavit in both matter i.e. in limitation matter as well as in memo of
appeal.
Put up this case when the physical court starts.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
sandeep/R.S-
