Jharkhand High Court
Sunita Singh vs Union Of India on 11 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 247 of 2013
........
Sunita Singh .... ..... Appellant
Versus
Union of India, through the General Manager,
East Central Railway, Hazipur .... ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Appellant : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
........
10/11.01.2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Birendra Kumar.
Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned award
dated 20.06.2013 passed by learned Member (Technical), Railway Claims
Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. OA(IIU)/ RNC / 2010 / 0028
whereby the claim application of the appellant has been dismissed on the
ground that no evidence (oral or documentary) was produced by the
applicant's counsel to establish that the case will fall under the definition
of untoward incident as per of expression of Section 123 (c) of the
Railways Amended Act, 1994 though the learned Tribunal has
categorically admitted that deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train
in question as deceased Birendra Nath Singh has purchased ticket, which
has been affirmed from the inquest report brought on record as Exhibit-
A3.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that claim
application has only been repudiated on the ground that as per the claimant
deceased purchased ticket at Gaya Railway Station for Dhanbad for
boarding Doon Express on 25.06.2009. As per the time table Doon
Express no.13010 departs Gaya Railway Station at 9.27 P.M. and arrives
Dhanbad at 1.10 A.M. and as per the railway record the gate man of
Dhanbad Railway Station informed railway at 11.45 P.M. about the
mishap.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that deceased had
purchased ticket, which was admitted by the learned Tribunal and
considered it to be a bonafide passenger but so far time table is concerned,
nowhere it is mentioned in the ticket that it is ticket for Doon Express.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that a large number
of trains are plying between Gaya and Dhanbad. Since the deceased was
travelling alone it has been stated that he was travelling on Doon Express.
The finding recorded by learned Tribunal on the basis of the application of
the claimant that he was travelling by Doon Express has been considered
by the railway on the basis of timing of the train.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Railway Act is
a benevolent legislation, for which two things are necessary; first the
passenger must be a bonafide passenger as defined under Section 2 (29) of
the Railways Act and the deceased must have died in an untoward incident
as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the
timing recorded by the gate-man is wrong, if the deceased was coming by
Doon Express. This gap of 1 hour 25 minutes is not so decisive, there may
be apparent error on part of the railway, which cannot be explained by the
appellant before this Court that how such time has been recorded;
secondly a large number of trains are plying in that route on that particular
day, if the train is coming from Gaya to Dhanbad and the passenger is
boarding a available train, to the best of the knowledge the family has
stated that he has boarded a train, which is Doon Express, but on such
ground his claim application cannot be repudiated, when several trains are
between Gaya and Dhandbad. Considering to be a beneficial legislation,
this Court may allow the compensation as prima-facie, bonafide passenger
has been established and untoward incident has also been established from
report submitted by the gate man, as such, the appeal may be allowed,
which has been wrongly rejected by the learned Tribunal on the basis of
timing.
Learned counsel for the respondent-railway, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha
has supported the impugned order on the ground that the appellant has not
proved his pleading, which has been made in the claim application that
deceased was travelling in Doon Express as the timing differs and as such,
this Court may not interfere with the same.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the
fact and circumstances of the case as well as lower court records, this
court considering Railway Act to be a benevolent legislation, allow this
appeal on the ground that deceased was a bonafide passenger and has
purchased a valid ticket at Gaya in the night of 25.06.2009 and he died in
the same night at Dhanbad Railway Station. Two possibilities are there;
first that the timing recorded by the gate man is wrong; second the
deceased might have boarded different train as a large numbers of trains
are plying between these two stations on main line, no contrary evidence
has been brought on record by Railway that no other train was there at
Gaya on that day for coming to Dhanbad, as such, the reason assigned by
the learned Tribunal to repudiate the claim is not justified in the opinion of
this Court.
Considering the same, the instant appeal is allowed the impugned
judgment is set aside.
The Railways is directed to indemnify the compensation to the
claimant. The occurrence is of dated 25.06.2009, the claim application was
filed on 26.02.2010 and the same was dismissed on 20.06.2013 and the
appeal was preferred in the year 2013 itself and thereafter, the same
remain pending before this Court. In the meantime, the Railway has
amended the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation)
Rules, 1990 by bringing the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents
(Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016, which has been made
applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2017, whereby the compensation has been
enhanced from Rs. 4,00,000/- to Rs. 8,00,000/- in case of death. The
claimants are entitled for compensation @ Rs. 8,00,000/- or Rs. 4,00,000/-
with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application till
the date of actual payment, whichever is higher 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, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court 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."
As such, the railway shall indemnify the compensation to the tune
of Rs. 4,00,000/- with simple interest @7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim application till the date of its realization or Rs.
8,00,000/- whichever is higher to the claimant within a period of 90 days.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil-Jay/-
