Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Bimla Devi vs Union Of India Through The General ... on 22 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
[Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction]
M.A. No. 138 of 2019
1.Smt. Bimla Devi
2.Nisha Kumari
3.Puja Singh
4.Ram Pari Devi .... .. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur,
Bihar. .. ... ... Respondent(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through :-Video Conferencing)
.........
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, Advocate.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent : Md. Jalisur Rahman, Advocate
..........
06 / 22.02.2021. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellants/claimants,
1.Smt. Bimla Devi, 2.Nisha Kumari, 3.Puja Singh and 4.Ram Pari Devi have
preferred this Misc. Appeal against the judgment dated 26.07.2018 passed by
Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, in Case No.OA
(IIU)/RNC/93/2016, whereby the claim application of the applicants has been
dismissed erroneously without considering the material brought on record.
Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has submitted that Shailendra
Kumar Singh (deceased), husband of appellant No.1, father of appellant Nos.2
and 3 and son of appellant no.4, purchased a genuine ticket from Dhanbad to
Sindri and boarded Passenger train i.e. Dhanbad-Sindri Passenger Train at about
18:00 hrs., on 22.02.2016 at Dhanbad. The deceased informed his brother,
Satyendra Narayan Singh on Mobile Phone No.8809119277, about purchasing of
ticket and boarding the train, but at around 21:00 Hours, Rail Police made a call
from a Mobile bearing No.82354-30809 informing that the person, (Shailendra
Kumar Singh) has died near Pole No.265/22 DN Railway Line. Thereafter the
informant went there and identified the deadbody. Police instituted U.D. Case
No.10 of 2016, and after post-mortem, the deadbody was handed-over to the
family members for cremation.
Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has further submitted that
Bimla Devi has been examined in this case as A.W.1 and she has categorically
stated in her examination-in-chief, about purchasing of ticket, which shows that
the deceased was a bonafide passenger and also in view of 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 of the same may be profitably quoted hereunder:-
"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."
Bimla Devi has been examined in this case as A.W.1 and Paras 1 to 7 may
profitably be quoted hereunder :-
"1.That my husband Shailendra Kumar Singh (since deceased) left house on
22.02.2016 at about [10:00] Hourse for going to Mohuda and told me that he
will return by Dhanbad-Sindri Passenger by night.
2. That he boarded Dhanbad-Sindri Passenger train at about (18=00) Hours at
Dhanbad Station for coming to Sindri Town after Purchased Ticket on
22.02.2016. He asked the above facts by Mobile to his brother Satendra
Narayan Singh.
3. That and as such we are waiting for his reaching. In the meanwhile, Satendra
Narayan Singh (my Dabour) was informed by Police Officer of G.R.P.S.,
Dhanbad at about 21=00 Hours that Sailendra Kumar Singh (my husband) died
Near Dhokra Holt due to falling from train.
4. That on receipt information of tragic death of my husband, members of my
family rushed to place of occurrence and identified the dead body of my
husabnd.
5. That, thereafter, fardbayen of Satendra Narayan singh (my Dabour) was
recorded and Inquest Report over dead body was prepared by Police Officer of
G.R.P.S., Dhanbad on 23.02.2016. Subsequently dead body was send for Post
Mortem Examination at P.M.C.H., Dhanbad.
6. That dead body of my husband was handed over after conducting P.M.
Examination on the same day 23/02/2016 for last rites.
7. That, G.R.P.S., Dhanbad, U.D. Case No.10/16 was registered on the basis of
fardbayan of Satendra Narayan Singh (Deceased's- Brother) and after inquiry
Final Report has been submitted conforming the death of deceased by falling
from running train Dhanbad- Sindri Passenger at Dokra Hlt on 22/02/2016."
Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has further submitted that
nothing has been elucidated by the Railway during cross-examination of this
witness (A.W.1- Bimla Devi).
Further, Satyendra Narayan Singh, informant and brother of the deceased
has been examined as A.W.2 in this case. He has also categorically stated about
the information given by his brother on mobile phone about the purchasing of the
ticket and boarding the train.
Satyendra Narayan Singh has been examined in this case as A.W.2 and
Paras 1 to 6 may profitably be quoted hereunder :-
"1. That, I am brother of the deceased Shailendra Kumar Singh as well as
informant of G.R.P.S., Dhanbad, U.D. Case No.10/16.
2. That in the evening of 22/02/2016, my brother Shailendra Kumar Singh
informed me over Mobile from Dhanbad Station that he boarded, Dhanbad-
Sindri for Sindri Town Passenger from after Purchased Ticket for coming his
house Sindri.
3. That on the same day at about 21-00 Hours, I was informed by Police Officer
of G.R.P.S., Dhanbad, that my brother Shailendra Kumar Singh crushed to
death by the Wheels of the train at Dokra Halt, Home Signal due to falling from
running train.
4. That on receipt unfortunate information we went there and identified dead
body of my brother Shailendra Kuamr Singh. Subsequently my fardbayan was
recorded by Police Officer of G.R.P.S., Dhanbad at about (8-30) Hours on
23/02/2016. Wherein Signature of Nisha Kumari (Deceased's daughter) and
Dhurendra Singh (Deceased's Brother) was taken and Inquest over the dead
body was prepared and thereafter Dead body was send for Post Mortem
Examination at P.M.C., Dhanbad.
5. That Dead body of my brother Shailendra Kumar Singh was handed over
after conducting Post Mortem Examination.
6. That my deceased brother Shailendra Kumar Singh left behind Bimla Devi
(Widow) and two major daughter namely Nisha Kumari and Puja Kumari."
Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has further submitted that during
cross-examination of this witness (A.W.2- Satyendra Narayan Singh) at question
nos.2, 5 and 8 which are as follows:-
"2. iz'u bl dsl esa ,QvkbZvkj gqvk gS\ mldk uEcj irk gS\
mRRkj& th gk¡A ,QvkbZvkj dk uEcj gesa irk ugha gSA
5- iz'u& e`rd dh e`R;q dgkWa gqbZ Fkh\ dc\
mÙkj& nkscjk gkYV esa 22-02-2016 dks djhc 6-30 cts ?kVuk gqvk FkkA
8- iz'u& vkius fy[kk gS fd vkidks Qksu ls [kcj feyk rks vkidk Qksu uEcj D;k gS\
mÙkj& esjk Qksu ua- 8809119277 gSA"
Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has further submitted that
nothing has been concealed from the learned Tribunal rather the DRM's report
which is based upon G.R.P. Report also shows that deceased died because of
running train, as such, the impugned judgment of dismissal passed by learned
Tribunal may be set aside by this Hon'ble Court.
Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has further submitted that
since the occurrence is of dated 22.02.2016, the claim application was filed on
28.07.2016, which was dismissed on 26.07.2018, as such, in view of the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Radha Yadav, reported
in 2019(3) SCC 410. Para 11 of which may be profitably quoted hereunder:-
"11. This issue raised in the matter does not really require any
elaboration as in our view, the judgment of this Court in Rina Devi
(supra) is very clear. What this Court has laid down is that the amount
of compensation payable on the date of accident with reasonable rate of
interest shall first be calculated. If the amount so calculated is less than
the amount prescribed as on the date of the award, the claimant would
be entitled to higher of these two amounts. Therefore, if the liability has
arisen before the amendment was brought in, the basic figure would be
as per the Schedule as was in existence before amendment and on such
basic figure reasonable rate of interest would be calculated. If there be
any difference between the amount so calculated and the amount
prescribed in the measure of compensation. 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.,
Learned counsel for the respondent-Railway has opposed the prayer and
submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the evidence brought
on record by the claimants. It is surprising thing to note that a person who will
board the train will inform his family members, that I have purchased a ticket,
which has rightly been appreciated by the learned Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Railway has further submitted that he
has filed counter-affidavit and in support of his submission placed reliance at
Paras 8, 12, 13 and 14 which may profitably be quoted hereunder:-
"8.That it is stated and submitted that respondent-railway appeared and
contested the case. It has been contended on behalf of the Railway that it is not
an admitted case that the deceased has fallen from the running train. In this
regard railway is protected under the exception clause of Section 124(A) of the
Railways Act. The respondent railway has further contended that injuries
mentioned in the post-mortem report did not indicate that the injuries were due to
alleged accident. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to get any
compensation from the railway administration. And, as such, it has been prayed
before the Tribunal for dismissal of the claim application.
12. That it is stated and submitted that learned Tribunal has examined the
witnesses, during the course of trial the Ld. Tribunal has found with regard to
issue No.1 that claimants have stated in their application that journey ticket of
the deceased was lost. The claimant-wife namely, Smt. Bimla Devi in her cross-
examination has deposed that her husband told his brother, Sri Satyendra
Narayan Singh that he is coming and he had taken a journey ticket. The Ld.
Tribunal found it as a fake claim and this cannot be a proof of the facts that the
deceased had purchased a ticket and was a bonafide passenger of the train.
13. That it is stated and submitted that finding of the learned Tribunal is that no
normal person on boarding a train calls up his relatives just to inform that he has
brought a general ticket and boarded a train. This is not a valid and acceptable
proof of the facts that the deceased was a bonafide passenger.
14.That it is stated and submitted that it is apparent from perusal of the final
report that deceased had called his relative just to inform him that he had
boarded a train after purchasing a train ticket. This final report was prepared by
Sri Suresh Singh, A.S.I./Dhanbad. It is very surprising that how an
A.S.I./Dhanbad could know that the deceased has called up on his relative to tell
him that he had purchased a ticket. Therefore, Ld. Tribunal has found it as the
same has been included in the final report with some specific purpose in mind to
give supports to contention of the applicant/claimant that the deceased was a
bonafide passenger. Therefore, Ld. Tribunal denied to take cognizance of the
statement made in the final report prepared by an A.S.I. of the G.R.P.S./Dhanbad
that the deceased called his relative that he had bought a ticket and with this
statement, Ld. Tribunal has rightly disagreed. As such, it has been found by the
Ld. Tribunal that deceased was not a bonafide passenger as they fail to establish
that he was a bonafide passenger.
As such, this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment passed
by the learned Tribunal."
Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into the facts
and circumstances of the case and the evidence brought on record of A.W.1
(Bimla Devi) of her examination-in-chief at Paras 1 to 6 and A.W.2 (Satyendra
Narayan Singh) of his examination-in-chief at Paras 1 to 6 and cross-examination
at question nos.2, 5 and 8 and coupled with the D.R.M.'s report and the First
Information Report, it appears that the Learned Tribunal has taken a hyper
technical approach while reading the mind of all the passengers and considering
to be psychologist, which is not acceptable to this Court. The evidence brought on
record is completely in consonance with the judgment passed by the Apex Court
in the case of Rina Devi (supra), as such, the deceased (Shailendra Kumar Singh)
is considered to be a bonafide passenger. The DRM's Report coupled with the
evidence brought on record and the final report of the U.D. Case No.10/16, the
incident is proved to be an untoward incident, as defined under Section 123(c)(2)
of the Railways Act, 1989, as such, the impugned judgment requires interference
and thus fit to be set aside.
Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 26.07.2018 passed by Learned
Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No.OA (IIU)/RNC/93/2016 is hereby set
aside.
The Respondent-Railway is directed to pay Rs.4 Lacs along with simple interest
@ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing claim application i.e. 28.07.2016 till
the date of actual indemnifying the award or Rs.8 Lacs whichever is higher in
favour of the claimants in view of judgment passed by the Apex Court in case of
Radha Yadav (Supra).
The instant Misc. Appeal stands allowed.
The compensation amount, as aforesaid, shall be apportioned equally
between the surviving claimants.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sandeep/
