Jharkhand High Court
The Union Of India Through vs Smt. Sarasawati Devi on 18 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 116 of 2014
........
The Union of India through
the Deputy Chief Commercial Manager/Claims,
South Eastern Railway, Kolkata .... ..... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sarasawati Devi .... ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Krishna Mohan Murari, Advocate.
........
06/18.01.2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Mahesh Tewari
and learned counsel for the respondent / claimant, Mr. Krishna
Mohan Murari.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
Railway has preferred this appeal against the judgment/Award
22.11.2013 passed by learned Member (Technical), Railway Claims
Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/2010/0065,
whereby the claimant has been awarded a compensation to the tune
of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
filing of the Original Application i.e. 22.01.2007 till the date of the
order i.e. 22.11.2013 and 9% per annum from the date of submission
of bank account particulars till the date of actual payment.
Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned
judgment challenging the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal
with regard to bonafide passenger as discussed in para-5 of the
impugned judgement.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
contention of the applicant has been disputed by the Railway that
ticket has been lost, but learned Tribunal has concluded that the
deceased was a bonafide passenger even though no evidence has
been brought on record by the applicant, as such, the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Tribunal may be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Krishna Mohan
Murari, has submitted that the deceased was a bonafide passenger
and to that effect, the claimant has mentioned the same in his
application as well as in the evidence of A.W.-1, Smt. Saraswati Devi
and A.W.-2 Niranjan Nishad that the deceased has boarded the train
Jansatabdi Express from Barajamda to Tatanagar on 13.03.2006 and
as such, the deceased was a bonafide passenger as no contrary
evidence has been brought on record by the Railway. The learned
Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of 2008 (1) TCJ 108 (Union
of India Vs. G. Loganayaki & Others) and recently the Apex Court
has also held in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, (2019) 3
SCC 572 (para-29). Para-29 of the aforesaid judgment is profitably
quoted hereinbelow:-
"29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway
premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a
bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be
maintained. 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. This will have to be dealt with from case to
case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will
stand explained accordingly."
(emphasis supplied)
Learned counsel for the respondent has thus submitted that the
appeal may be dismissed as no other grounds has been urged on
behalf of the Railways.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into
facts and circumstances of the case, since the learned Tribunal has
passed the order based on the evidence brought by the applicant, no
contrary evidence brought on record by the Railway, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned
Tribunal.
Accordingly, the instant miscellaneous appeal is dismissed.
However, because of pendency of the appeal in a benevolent
legislation at the relevant time of judgment / Award, the
compensation was Rs. 4,00,000/-, which has been amended by the
Railway in the year 2016 by bringing an amendment in the Railway
Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990
w.e.f. 01.01.2017 i.e. the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents
(Compensation) Rules, 2016 by enhancing the amount of Rs.
4,00,000/- to Rs. 8,00,000/-, this Court is also inclined to accept this
situation and also because 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."
Accordingly, this Court is inclined to direct the Railway to pay
the awarded amount in view of the judgment passed by the learned
Tribunal to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- with simple interest @ 7.5%
per annum from the date of filing of Original Application i.e.
22.01.2007 till the date of payment or Rs. 8,00,000/- whichever is
higher in favour of the claimant.
Let the LCR be sent down.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil-Jay/-
