Union Of India Through General ... vs Aisa Khatoon
2021 Latest Caselaw 1141 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            (Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
                   M.A. No. 463 of 2019
                          ........

Union of India Through General Manager, Eastern Railway .... ..... Appellant Versus

1. Aisa Khatoon

2. Imteyaz Ansari

3. Nasrin Perween

4. Yasmin Khatoon .... ..... Respondents

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

For the Appellant : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mrs. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha, Advocate.

........

05/08.03.2021.

Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Gautam Rakesh and learned counsel for the respondents, Mrs. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Union of India, through General Manager, Eastern Railway has preferred this appeal against the award / judgment dated 07.03.2019 passed by learned Member (Technical) Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. OA/(IIU)/RNC/64/2018 awarding compensation to the claimants namely, 1. Aisa Khatoon, 2. Imteyaz Ansari, 3. Nasrin Perween and 4. Yasmin Khatoon to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 06.03.2018 till the date of judgment and, if the amount is not paid within 90 days, interest, thereafter, will be paid at the rate of 9% per annum simple till the date of actual payment. The compensation amount has been apportioned as Aisa Khatoon (wife- widow), Rs.5,00,000/-, Imteyaz Ansari (son), Rs.1,00,000/-, Nasrin Perween (daughter), Rs.1,00,000/- and Yasmin Khatoon (daughter), Rs.1,00,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned award with delay of 225 days in preferring the appeal, for condonation of the same, I.A. No.9030/2019 has been preferred.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that for the stay of the execution proceeding, I.A. No.9031/2019 has been preferred by the railway.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that as per the fact of the case, the deceased Yehia @ Mahammad Yahia had gone to Naihati on 29.10.2017 alongwith 6 labours of Gouri Jute Mill namley, Samsuddin, Daramnath and two lady labours for the purpose to submit their official documents for granting their GPF to the Jute Mill Authority. While returning from Naihati they all had purchased the tickets and boarded at Bandel Jn. in Mokama Fast Passenger Train No.53049 UP on 30.10.2017. The deceased fell down from the running train between Salanpur and Rup Narayanpur at KM 226/31- 226/33 and died on spot.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that since the accident took place between Salanpur and Rup Narayanpur, the learned Railway Claim Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, has no jurisdiction, as such, the impugned order is bad in law.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that since the journey ticket no.07680322 dated 30.10.2017 Ex-Naihati to Siwan, was seized in presence of available witnesses, as such, the deceased boarded a wrong train thus deceased was not a bonafide passenger.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted in this regard that though this is the investigating report, but other document filed by the railway shows that deceased has not fallen from the train, which has not been appreciated by the learned Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that so far the untoward incident is concerned, the railway has submitted that DRM's report, which shows that investigation done under the provision of "Railway Passengers (Manners of investigation of untoward incident) Rules, 2003", as per Investigating Officer's findings, that the victim had fallen down from Train No.53049, as such, it was an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) (2) of the Railways Act.

Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that delay of 225 days in preferring the appeal may be condoned.

Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, Mrs. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the

stand taken by the railway, on the question of jurisdiction has already been decided by the learned Tribunal on 19.12.2018, as it appears from the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal with respect to issue No.1. The railway authority has not preferred any appeal against the said order dated 19.12.2018, before any appellate authority.

Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has submitted that Rule, 8 of the Railway Claim Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 has been substituted by G.S.R. 77 (E) dated 02.12.2002 w.e.f. 02.12.2002, which reads as follows:-

"8. Place of filing application for compensation in accident or untoward incident claim - An application for compensation payable under section 124 or 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989) may be filed before the Bench having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the accident or untoward incident occurs or where the claimant normally resides."

Under the aforesaid circumstance as also in view of the order, which has not been assailed, the objection taken by the railway is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has submitted, that no contrary evidence has been brought on record by the railway to the claim made by the claimants, that deceased Yehia @ Mahammad Yahia was not travelling as a bonafide passenger having ticket No.07680322 dated 30.10.2017.

Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has referred Section 2 (29) of the Railways Act which deals and defined bonafide passenger i.e. "passenger" means a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket."

Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has thus submitted that since no contrary evidence has been brought on record by the railway to declare the deceased not to be a bonafide passenger, as such, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to bonafide passenger does not require any interference by this Court.

Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has submitted that so far untoward incident is concerned, if a passenger has purchased a bonafide ticket and he fell down from the train and to that effect the U.D. Case has been instituted and the Investigating Officer has given a finding, that the victim has fallen down from the train sustained injury and died on the spot and no contrary evidence has been brought on record by the railway to prove that death occurred due to any of the exceptional clauses of (a) to (e) of the proviso of Section 124 A of the Railways Act, the deceased has rightly been declared by the learned Tribunal that he lost his life in an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act.

Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has submitted, that it is a specific case of the claimants, that during course of journey due to pressure and jostling of passengers, the deceased fell down from the running train between Salanpur and Rup Narayanpur, at KM 226/31 - 226/33 and died on the spot.

Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527 and has submitted that the impugned judgment does not require any interference by this Court.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the fact and circumstances of the case, it appears that deceased was travelling as a bonafide passenger having journey ticket No.07680322 dated 30.10.2017, Ex-Naihati to Siwan, but fell down from running train i.e. Mokama Fast Passenger Train No.53049 UP between Salanpur and Rup Narayanpur at KM 226/31 - 226/33 and died on the spot. The Station Manager / Sitarampur issued a memo, admitting that one unknown male person fell down between at KM 226/31 -226/33 Train No.53049 UP. This was also supported by the Investigating Officer.

Considering the same, the deceased was a bonafide passenger, who lost his life in an untoward incident, accordingly, the finding

recorded by the learned Tribunal does not require any interference.

So far the jurisdiction is concerned, the Rule, 8 of the aforesaid act is specific to that.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds that appeal is devoid of merits, accordingly dismissed.

Since the appeal is dismissed, the Interlocutory Applications vide I.A. No.9030/2019 and I.A. No.9031/2019 are also closed.

Let L.C.R. be sent down to the court below.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Jay/-