Smt. Sunita Devi vs The Union Of India Through The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 360 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             (Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
                    M.A. No. 502 of 2014
                           ........

1. Smt. Sunita Devi

2. Shri Rajendra Prasad Bhagat .... ..... Appellants Versus The Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata .... ..... Respondent .......

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

For the Appellants : Mr. Subham Mishra, Advocate.

Mr. T.K. Mishra, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

........

09/25.01.2021.

Heard, learned counsel, Mr. Subham Mishra assisted by learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. T.K.Mishra and learned counsel for the Railway, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha.

The claimants namely, Smt. Sunita Devi and Rajendra Prasad Bhagat have preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment dated 01.09.2014 passed by learned Member (Technical), Railways Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench Ranchi in Case No. OA(IIU) / RNC / 2012 / 0001, whereby the claim application of the applicants have been dismissed on the ground that claimants were directed to submit original / certified copies of the relevant document on 04.07.2013 to establish their claim as photo copies of the some documents i.e. Fardbeyan and FIR were annexed to the petition. The inquest report, post-mortem report and final form were not submitted. But inspite of adequate opportunity given on eight occasions, the claimants have not filed the authenticated documents in support of their claim, accordingly their case is not proved.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that from perusal of the impugned award itself, it appears that Ajit Kumar Bhagat entered into compartment of Train No.266 DN Katwa Passenger at Mirzachowki Station on 21.03.2009, but had to stand at the door of the compartment due to heavy rush. When the train started running he fell down from train, suffered serious injury and died on the spot. His brother-in-law Rajiv Kumar Bhagat had

purchased ticket no.54228 from ex-Mirzachowki to Pakur on 21.03.2009.

The applicants produced Smt. Sunita Devi as A.W.-1 and Rajiv Kumar Bhagat as A.W.2 and apart from that, the documents mentioned at paragraphs-4 of the impugned judgment i.e. F.I.R., typed copy of Report dated 21.3.2009 of Thana Incharge/Sahibganj, Fardbeyan of Rajiv Kumar Bhagat, typed copy of Fardbeyan of Rajiv Kumar Bhagat in two sheets, Voter ID of Smt. Sunita Devi, Voter ID of Sri Rajendra Prasad Bhagat and Joint Account Pass Book of Applicants in two sheets, have been produced, but the photocopy of the document filed by the applicant and photocopy of some of the document brought on record by Railway, such as FIR, photo copy of fardbeyan of Rajiv Kumar Bhagat mentioned at para-5 of the impugned judgment are common, as such, learned Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the claim application as these documents are never under dispute. A fact, which is admitted, is sufficient to establish before the learned Tribunal and too that in such cases where the legislation has been done for the purpose of benefits of the citizen.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned Tribunal should have considered the secondary evidence as defined under Section 63 (2) & (3) of the Indian Evidences Act, as such, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is fit to be set aside.

Section 63 (2) & (3) of the Evidence Act reads as follows:-

63. Secondary evidence. - Secondary evidence means and includes-

(1) ............................................... (2) copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies;

(3) copies made from or compared with the original; (4) ............................................... (5) ..............................................

Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that in Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the amount of compensation was Rs. 4,00,000/-, which is enhanced to Rs. 8,00,000/- in view of amendment made in the

Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016, which is applicable from 01.01.2017, as such, the compensation for death which has been enhanced from Rs. 4,00,000/- to Rs. 8,00,000/- may be granted to the claimants, which has already been dealt with 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."

Learned counsel for the respondent - Railway, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha has opposed the prayer and has referred paragraphs 10 to 13 of the counter affidavit filed by the Railway on 21.01.2021 and has submitted that this Court may not interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal.

Para-10 to 13 of the counter affidavit are re-produced hereunder:

10. That the Learned Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, has been heard after hearing the parties "prima facie". It is decide that the claimant have failed to establish their case by not submitting the original copy / certified copies of the FIR, inquest report, postmortem report and final report and resultantly claim application dismissed and all the issues decided in the following manner:-

Issue Nos. 1, 2 & 3:

The claimants were directed to submit original / certified copies of the relevant documents on 04.07.2013 to establish their claim as photo copies of some documents i.e. Fard Beyan and FIR were

annexed to the petition. The inquest report, postmortem report and final form were not submitted. But, since inspite of adequate opportunities given on eight occasions, they have failed to submit the authenticated documents in support of their claim, their case is not proved, hence, the case is dismissed on contest with no costs.

11. That the Learned Court below rightly dismissed the claim application of the claimant / appellant, they are not entitled for compensation without proving the case with authenticated documents, thus, they failed to prove their case.

12. That there is no error or irregularities in the order dated 01.09.2014 passed by Learned Railway Claims Tribunal and the said order dated 01.09.2014 is liable to be confirmed by this Hon'ble Court at this stage.

13. That the grounds made in this memo of appeal is not tenable in the eye of law as well as on facts and circumstances of this case, thus, there is no merit in this appeal and liable to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Court on merit.

After hearing leaned counsel for the parties and on the basis of materials available brought on record, it appears that documents, which has been produced by the applicants have been admitted by the Railway, but even then a hyper technical approach has been taken by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in dismissing the claim application, though consistent evidence has been brought on record in the evidence of A.W.1 Smt. Sunita Devi and A.W.-2 Rajiv Kumar Bhagat, instead of examining the document, which is not disputed by the parties, the learned Tribunal has taken a hyper technical approach, which is not acceptable to this Court and as such, this Court is inclined to allow the appeal.

Since the consistent evidence is there with regard to ticket no. 54228 from ex-Mirzachowki to Pakur on 21.03.2009 and to that effect A.W.-2 Rajiv Kumar Bhagat has stated in paragraphs-2 and 3 of the examination-in-chief, nothing contrary has been brought by the Railway to disbelieve the evidence of A.W.-2, as such, this Court is inclined to allow the appeal.

Accordingly, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 01.09.2014 passed by learned Member

(Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi is set aside.

The Railway is directed to indemnify Rs.4 lacs along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 09.05.2011 till the date of actual indemnifying the award or Rs.8 lacs, whichever is higher.

Let the compensation be paid in equal proportion to both the appellants.

Let the LCR be sent down.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil-Jay/-