Smt. Kunti Devi vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 4 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             (Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
                         M.A. No. 409 of 2013
                                ........

Smt. Kunti Devi                              .... ..... Appellant
                              Versus
Union of India, through the General Manager
Eastern Railway, Kolkata                  ....       ..... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
            (Through : Video Conferencing)
                                ............
For the Appellant               : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent              : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
                                ........
13/04.01.2021.

Smt. Kunti Devi, W/O late Rambachan Pandit being the claimant has preferred this appeal being dissatisfied with the judgment dated 21.08.2013 passed by Ms. Vandana Singhal, learned Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. TAU / RNC / 2003 / 0036, whereby the claim application of the applicant / claimant / appellant has been dismissed on the grounds that the incident was not covered under definition of untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh has submitted that husband of the claimant Rambachan Pandit boarded Ganga Damodar Express Train No.3329 up at Dhanbad Station on 03.11.2001 after purchasing a valid ticket of general class and because of rush and jolt, he fell down accidentally near Traction Colony, Dhanbad between Pole No. 271/27-28, while travelling Ex-Dhanbad to Patna.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Kunti Devi has been examined as A.W.-1 and she has categorically stated that deceased was her husband and was a permanent employee of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Arjun Pandit has been examined as A.W.-2, who is son-in-law of the deceased, but his evidence has been wrongly recorded by the learned Tribunal, which is contrary to the deposition of A.W.-2 Arjun Pandit.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned Tribunal has wrongly recorded that "A.W.-2 Arjun Pandit, son-in-law of the deceased, says in his deposition that he also came to Dhanbad Station on that day but he is not aware of the train, which his father-in-law

boarded. He also came to know of the incident after 7-8 days. This deposition does not given any information about the incident."

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that contrary and perverse finding has been recorded by the learned Member (Technical) contrary to the evidence of A.W.-2, which has been brought on record and has referred the evidence of A.W.-2 Arjun Pandit, which is reproduced hereunder:

"1. That I knew Rambachan Pandit, S/o Late Sadhu Pandit as he was my relative.

2. That he met me at Booking Counter of Dhanbad Jn. On : 03/11/2001 at about 22.30 Hours. He had purchased Ticket 2nd - Class (Express) for going to Patna Jn. and I had purchased Ticket for going to Kolkata.

3. That both of us came at Platform of Dhanbad Station. After some times Ganga-Damodar Express arrived at Station. My relative Rambachan Pandit boarded over crowded 2nd Class compartment of aforesaid train in my presence and subsequently the train left the station, At about 23.15 Hours.

4. That later on I heard that Rambachan Pandit died on the same day due to accidentally falling from aforesaid train.

5. That the above statement was read over and explained to me in Hindi. I understood the contents of the same."

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that if learned Member (Technical) of a Railway Claims Tribunal passed an order by recording apparently wrong evidence in such a benevolent legislation then people at large is not at safe hand.

Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that learned Tribunal must appoint such person as Member of the Railway Claims Tribunal after seeing the conduct of such person. The Member (Technical), who has recorded such finding, which is apparently not in the deposition of the witness must be deprecated by this Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that 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, the claim application is fit to be allowed. Para-29 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereinunder:

"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."

Learned counsel for the respondent-Railways, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, has submitted that apparently there is an error of record on the part of the Member (Technical) while recording the evidence. A.W.-2 Arjun Pandit has categorically stated that the deceased Rambachan Pandit has purchased ticket and in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra), the deceased was bonafide passenger, but how such thing has been recorded by the Member (Technical), it is not within his capacity to explain the same.

However, learned counsel for the respondent-Railway has submitted that this Court may not pass any stricture against the Member (Technical) Ms. Vandana Singhal as she might have retired / superannuated from that post.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of material perused by this Court including the evidence of A.W.-2 Arjun Pandit, this Court finds that the Member (Technical) Ms. Vandana Singhal has not discharge her duty properly, while recording the evidence in the impugned judgment. This court deprecates such conduct of the Member (Technical) while deciding beneficial legislation as a Member (Technical) in the Railway Claims Tribunal.

So far the claim application of the applicant is concerned, it is fit to be allowed in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra).

Accordingly, the miscellaneous appeal is allowed. Since the occurrence was of dated 03.11.2001, the claim application was filed on 16.05.2002, which was decided on 21.08.2013 by dismissing the same, but the appeal has been filed on 21.12.2013 and as such, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum or Rs. 8,00,000/- whichever is higher in view of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 2016, which has been made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2017.

Let a copy of order be communicated to the Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi for kind perusal. In this case, the act of Ms. Vandana Singhal the Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench is highly deprecated.

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