Smt. Sulekha Devi Widow Of Late ... vs Union Of India Through The General ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5051 Jhar

                                        1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           M.A. No. 417 of 2015
                                      ----
         1. Smt. Sulekha Devi widow of late Binay Paswan
         2. Rabish Kumar, Minor son of Late Binay Paswan through his
            natural Guardian, the mother, Smt. Sulekha Devi widow of Late
            Binay Paswan.
            Both resident of Village/Mohalla Akash Kinari Colliery, Battighar,
            Post Katrasgarh, Police Station Katras, District Dhanbad.
                                     ...           ...             Appellants
                                   -versus-
            Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Central
            Railway, Hajipur, Post Hajipur, Police Station Hajipur, District
            Vaishali.
                                     ...           ...             Respondent
                                      ----
            CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
                               ----
    For the Appellants:  Mr. Samvesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate
    For the Respondents: Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI
                         Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate
                               ----
                           ORDER

RESERVED ON 11.05.2022 PRONOUNCED ON 13.12.2022

This appeal is at the instance of the claimants, challenging the award dated 11.03.2015 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Case No. O.A. (IIU)/RNC/2013/0078, whereby the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed by the claimants.

2. It is the case of the claimants-appellants that Binay Paswan was travelling from Gaya Junction to Gomoh on 12.02.2011, when he fell down between Bhulidih and Nimiyaghat Stations at K.M. 306/03-01 and died at the spot. He was travelling with general ticket vide No.71303668, thus, she claims compensation.

3. Claim application was contested by the Railways. According to the Railways, the ticket, which is being relied upon by the claimants was issued at 22.09 Hrs. on 12.02.2011 from Booking Counter No.4 of Gomoh Station, whereas the dead body was recovered much earlier at 10.30 hours on 12.02.2011 and even the informant has given his statement before the Officer- in-Charge, GRP at 16.45 hours on the same day, i.e., 6 hours before the ticket was purchased.

4. The Tribunal framed three issues and considering the oral evidence and the documentary evidence, dismissed the claim application.

5. Counsel for the appellants submits that in the First Information Report, which was registered on 12.02.2011, the Railway Ticket Number is mentioned as 71303668 and that being so, presumption would be in favour of

the claimant. Once a ticket is recovered and the claimants claim that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling by train and met with accidental fall, claimants are entitled for grant of compensation.

6. To adjudicate the aforesaid issue whether the deceased was bonafide passenger or not, I have gone through the entire records and the documents. The ticket has been brought on record. This ticket is heavily relied upon by the claimants. The ticket was issued from Gaya Junction to Gomoh Junction on 12.02.2011 at 22.09 hours. The ticket number is 71303668. Thus, it is well proved that the journey ticket which was allegedly recovered from the person of the deceased was issued at 22.09 hours on 12.02.2011. Admittedly, the dead body was recovered in the morning hours on 12.02.2011, which is apparent from the first information report itself. When I go through the First Information Report, I find that the author of the First Information Report is Jay Prakash Ranjan. He gave his statement on 12.02.2011 at 16.45 hours. He stated that on the same day, i.e., 12.02.2011 at 10.30 hours, railway officials directed him to reach near Pole No.306/03 and 306/01, where the dead body was lying. He reached there and found the dead body. Admittedly, this dead body related to this claim case. In the said fardbeyan, I find that at the second last paragraph, an interpolation has been done and a line has been added noting that a ticket was also found from the person of the deceased which is numbered as 71303668. Be it noted that there is no whisper of any railway ticket in the inquest report. These two facts clearly suggest that the railway ticket was purchased after the body was recovered and to make out a case of "untoward incident" in terms of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, the ticket was introduced. Admittedly, it has now been proved that the railway ticket, which the claimants heavily rely upon, was purchased at 22.09 hours on 12.02.2011, whereas the body was recovered on 12.02.2011 at 12.30 a.m. This clearly suggests that by resorting to unfair means, the claimants had approached the Tribunal only for the purpose of claiming compensation. The Railway Claims Tribunal has correctly dismissed the claim application filed by the claimants.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award dated 11.03.2015 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Case No. O.A. (IIU)/RNC/2013/0078. Thus, there being no merit, this appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02