Abadh Bihari Singh vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 575 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            (Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
                   M.A. No. 491 of 2016
                            ........

1. Abadh Bihari Singh

2. Meena Devi .... ..... Appellants Versus Union of India, through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata. .... ..... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing) ............

For the Appellants : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, Advocate : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Advocate.

........

05/08.02.2021.

Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha assisted by Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate and learned counsel for the Railway, Mr. Gautam Rakesh.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that claimants have preferred this appeal against the award dated 22.12.2015 in Case No. OA(IIU)/RNC/2007/0054 passed by learned Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench is bad in law as both the issues with regard to the bonafide passenger and with regard to the untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) (2) of the Railways Act have been decided against the claimants, contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the Case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, reported in (2019) 3 SCC

572. Para-29 and in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar & Others reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that claimants, Sri Abadh Bihari Singh and his wife Smt. Shela Devi have prayed for grant of compensation for death of their son namely Santosh Kumar Singh, who fell down from the running Train No.8626 Hatia - Patna Express on 14.05.2006 near- Radhagaon Railway Station and died on the spot. He was

travelling along with one Anil Kumar Singh after having 2 nd Class Express ticket Ex - Ranchi to Bokaro Steel City and said ticket was lost in the alleged incident. The claimant, Abadh Bihari has been examined as A.W.-1 and has categorically stated in paragraphs- 2 and 3 of his examination-in-chief, which may be taken note of and same may be re-

produced hereunder:-

"2. That, my said son boarded the train No.8626 ( Hatia

-Patna Exp. at Ranchi Station on 14/5/2006 along with Anil Kumar Singh for coming to Bokaro Steel City (stn.). They had purchased Two Express Tickets for Bokaro Steel City for their journey.

3. That, my said son informed me over Mobile the aforesaid facts after leaving the train from Ranchi. He also told me that he will come my place on the next day (15/5/2006) for Bokaro."

No contrary evidence has been brought on record by the Railway and as such, the impugned order dismissing the claim application is fit to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that so far the issue with regard to the untoward incident is concerned, A.W.-1 has categorically stated in paragraph-4 of his examination-in-chief, which may be taken note of and same may be re-produced hereunder:-

"4. That, on the very date (i.e. 14/5/2006) at about (10A.M.) I was informed by my brother Sikendra Kumar Singh and Anil Kumar Singh that my son Santosh Kumar Singh had died due to falling down from said running train accidentally near Radha Gaon to Bokaro Steel City."

And in view of the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar & Others (Supra) the incident is covered under definition of untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act.

Learned counsel for the Railway, Mr. Gautam Rakesh has submitted that deceased was travelling by Hatia -Patna Express and fell down, when his head was hit by the iron ladder of the signal post, while he leaned out to spit from a running express train and as such, the learned Tribunal has rightly refused the claim application, as no ticket has been recovered from possession of the deceased nor produced by the co-passenger.

Learned counsel for the Railway has relied upon paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit, which is re-produced hereunder:-

"8. That it is humbly stated that the learned Tribunal had rightly opined that the victim suffered injuries when he leaned out to spit from running express train. This was an intentional, deliberate and imprudent act on the part of the victim fraught with serious risk with every possibility of injury endangering the life of a person. It was total disregard of all safety norms required to be observed while travelling in a train and can have fatal consequences as it happened in the present case."

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking into fact and circumstances of the case as well as statement of A.W.-1 at paras-2 and 3 of his evidence are sufficient to consider, that the deceased, Santosh Kumar Singh was a bonafide passenger, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra).

So far untoward incident is concerned, the case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar & Others (Supra) in view of the evidence of A.W.1 at para-4. No contrary evidence has been brought on record by the Railway and DRM's report is basically an assumption drawn by the Railway, which is not acceptable to the Court.

So far the compensation with interest is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Radha Yadav reported in 2019 (3) SCC 410, has held in paragraph-11 as under:-

"11. ...................... For instance, in case of a death in an accident which occurred before amendment, the basic figure would be Rs 4,00,000. If, after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure were to be less than Rs 8,00,000, which was brought in by way of amendment, the claimant would be entitled to Rs 8,00,000. If, however, the amount of original compensation with rate of interest were to exceed the sum of Rs 8,00,000 the compensation would be in terms of figure in excess of Rs 8,00,000. The idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment, to the extent possible. Thus, according to us, the matter is crystal clear. The issue does not need any further clarification or elaboration."

And in view of the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others vs. Union of Indian (Supra), payment of interest is basically compensation for being denied the use of the money during the period in which the same could have been made available to the claimants. Para-38 of the aforesaid judgment is profitably quoted hereunder:-

"38. As we have indicated earlier, payment of interest is basically compensation for being denied the use of the money during the period in which the same could have been made available to the claimants. In our view, both the Tribunal, as also the High Court, were wrong in not granting any interest whatsoever to the appellants, except by way of a default clause, which is contrary to the established principles relating to payment of interest on money claims."

The Railway is directed to indemnify the compensation of Rs.

8,00,000/- or Rs. 4,00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of actual payment, in view of the amendment made in the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, which has been amended vide Railway Accidents and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016 w.e.f. 01.01.2017, whichever is higher in favour of the appellants.

Accordingly, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby allowed.

Let the L.C.R. be sent down to the court below forthwith.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Jay/-