Jharkhand High Court

Bijendra Singh vs Union Of India Through The General ... on 24 November, 2022

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         Miscellaneous Appeal No. 554 OF 2015

     1. Bijendra Singh
     2. Lal Pari Devi
        All are residents of - Village - 8 Anil Surpath Cross Road A, P.O & P.S. -
        Kadma, District - East Singhbhum.                           .... APPELLANTS
                                   -V E R S U S -
        Union of India through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway-3,
        Koilaghat Street, Garden Reach, Kolkata (West Bengal)       ...RESPONDENT

        CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK

          For the Appellants       :       Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, Advocate.
          For the Respondents      :       Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Advocate
                                           Ms. Akansha Anil, Advocate
                                 -------

08/ 24.11.2022 This appeal arises out of Order and Judgment dated 19.08.2015, passed by learned Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in Case No. OA(IIU)/ RNC/ 2013/0089, whereby and whereunder, the claim application filed by the appellants has been dismissed.

2. The facts as alleged in the original claim application, preferred by the claimants/appellants is that his father Sita Ram Singh @ Sita [email protected] Ram Sagar Singh, aged about 50 years, travelling by Train No.18616 Hatia-Howrah Express on 05.02.2013 and while going to the toilet fell down from running train at KM No.211/22-24. The train was crowded and was running at very high speed. The father of the claimants had a valid ticket from Tatanagar to Howrah, which could not be however, traced from the place of accident and as such, claim application was preferred for compensation of Rs.4.00/- lakhs with interest from the date of filing of the claim application till payment on account of death due to untoward incident i.e., falling down from the running train.

3. The Respondent-Railway appeared and filed their written statement, denying therein claim of the claimants on the ground that the age of the deceased is disputed and also stated that dead body was not of the applicant's father and as such, claim was to be dismissed.

4. During the proceeding, the claimants/appellants filed an application for amending the age of the deceased to 72 years on the basis of Aadhar Card, instead of 50/55 years as indicated in the Inquest Report, Final Report and PM Report, which was allowed.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed following issues:-

a) Whether Sita Ram Singh @ Sita Ram @ Ram Sagar Singh was a bona fide passenger as alleged?

b) Whether any untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 occurred to him while travelling by Hatia- Howrah Express Train No.18616 on 05.02.2013 from Tatanagar to Howrah station?

c) Whether the applicant is entitled for the compensation as claimed and other relief, if any ?

6. After hearing both the parties and going through the documents and evidences, brought on record, learned Tribunal discussed the issues in details and came to a finding vide order/award dated 19.08.2015 that applicant could not establish that the deceased died due to an untoward incident, therefore, we are unable to presume that the victim was a bona fide passenger, in absence of any evidence of a journey ticket and as such, claimants are not entitled to compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways (Amendment) Act, 1994.

7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied by the Award dated 19.08.2015, passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in Case No.OA(IIU)/RNC/2013/0089, the applicants/appellants has preferred this appeal.

8. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the claimants/appellants submits that from Annexure-9 of the Lower Court Records, it can be comfortably said that deceased was a bonafide passenger. He further submits that the claimants/appellants have also filed an affidavit before learned Tribunal that deceased had purchased ticket for journey, but the same was not recovered due to the accident. It was the duty of the respondents to bring on record the FIR as well Inquest Report and also the DRM's Report, failing to do so, it casts cloud on the Railway Authorities as in spite of non-recovery of ticket, the claimant is exempted from the burden of proof and the Railways is required to meet such claim, the liability of the Railways will increase disproportionately. He further submits that Final Report-Exh.A/9 is based on the SM/Ghatsila's Memo to GRP, which says that victim fell down from a running train. The interpretation of the learned Tribunal is not correct merely raising presumptions that since it was not made clear that from which train, he fell down, the untoward incident is not proved. From the documents, it is crystal clear that the victim had fallen down from running train and suffered injuries, which resulted into death

and hence claimants are entitled for the compensation as prescribed under the Act as on date with interest. Learned counsel submits that Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 deals with Compensation on account of untoward incident and Explanation thereof reads as under:-

"Explanation - For the purposes of this section, "passenger" includes

(i) a railway servant on duty, and

(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident."

9. Learned counsel further argues that the decision of learned Tribunal not holding the Railway liable for compensation, is completely against the provisions of law and not based on any evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that order of the learned Tribunal is cryptic, illegal and fit to be set aside. Learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in 2018(2) JBCJ 478 SC and submits that in view thereof appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 8 Lac.

10. On the other hand Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Akansha Anil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Railway vehemently opposes prayer and submission of the appellants and submits that claimants are not entitled for a single farthing as deceased was not a bonafide passenger. The issues decided by the learned Tribunal clearly shows that it is not a case of untoward incident. The ticket was not recovered from the place of incident or from body of the deceased. Claimants have failed to prove their case for grant of compensation. Justifying impugned Award it has been argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in passing impugned Award. Learned counsel has relied upon the Judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Bimla Devi and another Vs. Union of India passed in FAO No. 421/2012.

11. Having heard both sides and perusing the documents brought on record, I find force in submission of learned counsel for the appellants. Merely saying that deceased was not a bonafide passenger, the Railways cannot improve their case. There are every possibility of loss of tickets at the time of accident and merely because ticket was not found from possession of the deceased, a conclusion cannot be derived that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. The respondent-Railways failed to produce the FIR as well as DRM Report, which is mandatory as per the Rules.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent Judgment passed in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in 2018(2) JBCJ 478 SC, has held at para-16.1 as under:

"16.1 From the judgments cited at the Bar we do not see any conflict on the applicability of the principle of strict liability. Section 124 and Section 124A provide that compensation is payable whether or not there has been wrongful act, neglect or fault on the part of the railway administration in the case of an accident or in the case of an 'untoward incident'. Only exceptions are those provided under proviso to Section 124A. In Prabhakaran Vijya Kumar (supra) it was held that Section 124A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents. Where principles of strict liability applies, proof of negligence is not required. This principle has been reiterated in Jameela (supra)."

13. In view of facts and circumstances of the case as discussed hereinabove and the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, I do not find any force in contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent - Railway. This case is squarely covered by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rina Devi (Supra). Applying the said principles, this Court holds the incident in question to be an untoward incident and the claimants are entitled to the compensation from Railways. With respect to quantum of compensation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) has held that compensation will be payable as applicable on the date of accident but if the amount prescribed on the date of the award is higher than the amount payable on the date of the accident, then the claimant would be entitled to the higher of the two amounts. It is relevant to quote para-15.4 of the said Judgment.

"15.4. Accordingly, we conclude that compensation will be payable as applicable on the date of the accident with interest as may be considered reasonable from time to time on the same pattern as in accident claim cases. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled to higher of the two amounts. This order will not affect the awards, which have already become final and where limitation for challenging such awards has expired, this order will not by itself be a ground for condonation of delay. Seeming conflict in Rathi Menon Vs. Union of India, (2001) 3 SCC 714 and Kalandi Charan Sahoo Vs. General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (Civil Appeal No. 5608 of 2017, decided on 25th April, 2017] stands explained accordingly.

It is well settled that appeal is the continuation of the Claim Petition and power of the Appellate Court is co-extensive with that of the Claims Tribunal. Similar view has been taken in the case of Sardar Tajender Singh Gambhir Vs. Sardar Gurpreet Singh reported in 2014(10) SCC 702. Applying the principles laid down in the case of Rina Devi (Supra) in present case and the recent notification of compensation from Railways dated 22.12.2016, the claimants are held to be entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- from Railways.

14. As a sequel of aforesaid fact and circumstances, judicial pronouncements, this appeal is hereby allowed. The claimants are held entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs). Needless to say the amount of compensation shall be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum. The amount of compensation shall be equally distributed amongst the legal heirs.