Smt. Sumitra Devi vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 364 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             (Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
                       M.A. No. 140 of 2017
                                ......

      Smt. Sumitra Devi                                  .... .. ...         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. Vijay Shanker Jha, Advocate
      For the Resp-Railway           :      Mr. Prabhash Ch. Sinha, Advocate
                          ..........

06/ 25.01.2021. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has only decided the issue no.1- "Whether the deceased was a victim of the alleged untoward incident, as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989?" and other issue nos.2, 3 and 4 which reads as follows:-

"2. Whether the deceased Manoj Kr. Modi was a bonafide passenger of T.No.229 Up on 01.06.2001 at the time of the alleged untoward incident?

3. Whether the claim application of the applicant is maintainable?

4. Whether the applicant/dependents of the deceased are entitled to receive compensation as claimed for?"

Though the other issues have not been decided by the learned Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that deceased (Manoj Kumar Modi) went to Dhanbad Railway station on 01.06.2001 along with his brother (Anand Kumar), the said brother, Anand Kumar purchased a 2 nd class journey ticket bearing no.F-32004054, Ex-Dhanbad to Chandrapura for his brother. Deceased (Manoj Kumar Modi), boarded the train no.229 Up Burdwan- Hatia Passenger in the presence of Anand Kumar and thereafter Anand Kumar returned. When the said train reached near Bhuli Halt, Manoj Kumar fell down from the running train and died on spot. The station Master/Bhuli Halt received information through Key-man and thereafter Station Master/Bhuli, deputed Mohan Mahato, Gang man & Key man to keep a watch over the dead body. Then GRP/Dhanbad reached the spot and completed legal formalities. U/D Case No.27/2001 was registered and investigated.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that applicant, Smt. Sumitra Devi has appeared as witness- AW.1 and she has stated during cross- examination at para 4 that ticket was handed over to her by the police, which has been brought on record as Exhibit-A1.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Smt. Sumitra

Devi has been examined as AW-1 and she has categorically stated in her examination-in-chief at paras 1, 2, 3 and 4, which are as follows:-

"1. That I had filed aforesaid claim case on account of death my son Late Manoj Kumar Modi with relevant documents, which are following:

(i) Xerox copy of train ticket.

(ii) Copy of Fardbeyan.

(iii) Copy of dealt observation report.

(iv) Copy of F.I.R. and Final report.

(v) Copy of postmortam report.

(vi) Copy of post mortem certificate.

2. That the deceased Late Manoj Kumar Modi was travelling as a bonafide passenger having IInd Class train ticket No.F32004054 dated 01.06.2001 by the train no.229 UP Burdwan Hatia passenger from Dhanbad to Chandrapura Jn. when the said train reached near Bhuli Halt then he accidentally fell down from the moving train due to push out by heavy croud passenger. He died on spot.

4. That the G.R.P. Dhanbad registered the U/D Case No.27/01 prepared Inquest report. After Inquest report the dead body sent to P.M.C.H. Dhanbad for postmortem.

5. That I received information by the G.R.P. Dhanbad about the said untoward incident. After information and other relative went to P.M.C.H. Dhanbad when I saw the dead body of deceased. After postmortem the dead body of deceased received by the relative of deceased.

6.That there are following dependents of deceased.

(i) Sumitra Devi mother of deceased aged about 57 years.

(ii) Anand Kumar Modi younger brother of deceased aged about 33 years.

(iii) Pritam Kumar Modi brother of deceased aged about 30 years.

7. That I was at home at the time of untoward incident."

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Smt. Sumitra Devi ( AW-1) has stated in her cross-examination at paras 1, 2, 3 and 4, which are as follows:-

"1-eSa eukst dqekj ds lkFk ;k=k ugha dj jgh FkhA 2- ?kVuk ds ckjs esa nwljs us crk;k O;fDrxr tkudkjh ugha gSA 3- ,slk dksbZ vkneh ugha feyk tks ;g crk, fd geus ns[kk gS fxjrs gq,A 4- fVdV gedks iqfyl us fn;k vkSj dqN ugha fn;k dsoy fVdV fn;kA "

7. No contrary evidence has been brought on record by the Railways to disbelieve the evidence of AW-1 (Sumitra Devi) and AW-2 (Anand Kumar Modi).

Affidavit of AW-2 (Anand Kumar Modi) at para nos.1 and 2 are profitably quoted hereunder:-

"1. That I purchased one IInd class train ticket no.F 32004054 from Dhanbad to Chandrapura Jn. dated 1.6.01 for deceased and one platform ticket for myself. After purchasing train ticket I and deceased went to platform at Dhanbad Rly. Station. The train no.229 Up Burdwan Hatia passenger came at platform then the deceased boarded the said train at Dhanbad Rly. Station. After boarding the deceased I returned at Dhanbad for marketing. After marketing I returned home.

2. That I received telephonic information by the G.R.P. Dhanbad the deceased Manoj Kumar Modi fell down from the Burdwan Hatia Passenger at Bhuli Halt due to push out by heavy crowd passenger. He died on spot. After information I went to G.R.P. Dhanbad but the dead body of deceased was sent to P.M.C.H., Dhanbad for postmortem by the G.R.P. After postmortem, the dead body of deceased was received by the relative of deceased."

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that in view of the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572, the deceased was a bona-fide passenger as the original ticket has been produced and witness AW.2 has categorically supported the same and no contrary evidence has been brought on record by the Railway.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submission has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, reported in 2008(9) SCC 527 and has submitted that it was untoward incident as the deceased was a bona-fide passenger and he fell down from the running train. No contrary evidence has been adduced by the Railway even to the extent that how the original ticket was handed-over to the claimant by the Railway, to refute the claim application of the claimant, as such, present appeal may be allowed.

10. Further the amount of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- has been enhanced to Rs.8,00,000/- vide Railway Accidents and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016 effective from 01.01.2017, 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 in para 11 which is 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 the 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.

11. Learned counsel for the Railway has opposed the prayer and has submitted that it is surprising that deceased died near Bhuli station far from his house and the original ticket was produced by the applicant before the learned Tribunal, this shows concoction of the claim application.

12. Learned counsel for the Railway has relied upon the counter-affidavit filed by the Railway on 20.06.2020 at paras 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 and has submitted that

impugned judgment does not require any interfere by this Court.

Paras 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the counter-affidavit are profitably quoted hereunder:-

"7. That written statement was filed by the Respondent before the Ld. Railway Claims Tribunal. The respondent denied the story due to which the alleged death claimed to have occurred. DRM report was also filed.

9. That it humbly stated that the Learned Tribunal had in his judgment rightly dismissed the claim of the claimant.

10. That it is humbly stated that the appellant had not claimed that any interest was claimed at the time of filing of the claim application or thereafter. It has neither been mentioned in the judgment itself of such contention of the appellant.

11. That it is stated that there is nothing on the record as to show that the respondent can be held liable for any delay in disposal of the case.

12. That it is stated that there is no provision under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act for award of interest."

13. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the evidence brought on record by AW- 1 (Sunitra Devi) and her cross-examination at para 4, which explain that how applicant got ticket during her cross-examination in paragraph 4 made by the Railway. So far the bonafide passenger is concerned, there is ample evidence and to that effect there is supporting evidence of AW-2 (Anand Kumar Modi), as such, this Court considers the deceased (Manoj Kumar Modi) to be a bonafide passenger as well as the incident to be untoward incident as no contrary evidence has been brought on record by the Railway, as such, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal requires to be set aside.

14. Accordingly, the judgment dated 29.07.2016 passed by learned Member/Technical, Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in Case No.TAU/RNC/2014/0001 is hereby set aside.

15. Accordingly, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed.

16. Railway is directed to indemnify the compensation @ Rs.8,00,000/- or Rs. Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 13.02.2003 till the date of actual payment, whichever is higher in favour of the claimant.

17. LCR be sent down to the court below.

18. It is expected the Railway shall indemnify the award within a reasonable time as it is a benevolent legislation and the occurrence took place on 01.06.2001.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sandeep/R.S.