Jharkhand High Court
Sri Pintu Pal vs Union Of India Through General ... on 7 November, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 172 of 2022
1. Sri Pintu Pal S/o Late Vijay Kumar Pal aged about 35 years
2. Sri Rajiv Kumar Pal S/o Vijay Kumar Pal aged about 37 years
3. Smt. Rupali Bala Devi W/o Late Vijay Kumar Pal aged about 57 years
4. Smt Chetali Sen W/o Ashok Kumar Sen married daughter of Late Vijay
Kumar Pal aged about 35 years
All residents of Village/ Mohalla-Chhatnadangal, P.O.-Sagarbanga P.S.-
Dalojori, District-Deoghar(Jharkhand) ...... Appellants
Versus
Union of India Through General Manager, Eastern Railway, P.O. and P.S.-
Garden Reach Dist-Kolkata ......Respondent
----------
For the Appellants : Ms. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha, Advocate
For the Res. No.2 : Ms. Niki Sinha, Central Govt. Counsel
----------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. On 10.10.2023 Pronounced On: 07.11.2023
1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
26.03.2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi whereby and
whereunder the claim application of the appellants has been dismissed.
2. Factual matrix of the case is that on 23.04.2018 at about 10 Hrs. the
deceased, Vijay Kumar Paul has left home to meet his married daughter,
Chetali Sen. In the evening, brother in-law of the deceased informed the
applicant Pintu Pal that deceased has not reached the destination. It was
informed that one male person has fell down from the running train in
between Kaseetand and Vidyasagar. The applicant Pintu Pal along with
other family members rushed to the spot. They found the dead body of the
deceased lying outside the up track at K.M. 263/ 23-203/25. It is further
alleged that Railway Protection Force also arrived there and the applicants
identified the deceased. It is alleged that the deceased had purchased valid
ticket for travelling through passenger train from Jamtara to Vidyasagar and
boarded on Sealdah-Muzaffarpur Fast passenger train No. 53131 and due to
overcrowding he fell down from the running train in between Kaseetand and
Vidyasagar. On the basis of fardebeyan of son of deceased namely, Pintu Pal
a U.D. case bearing U.D. Case No. 14 of 2018 dated 23.04.2018 was
registered. Inquest report was prepared and after investigation final form
was submitted by the police. It is alleged that deceased was a bonafide
passenger of the aforesaid train and died in an untowards incident, therefore,
compensation was claimed of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Eight Lakhs) with interest
from the date of filing of the application i.e. 20.06.2018.
3. The learned tribunal after taking evidence of parties decided the
main issues as to whether the claimant was a bondafide passenger and died
to an "untowards incident" in the following terms:-
"In the Fardbayan of Sri Pintu Pal there is no mention of the train
number on which the deceased was travelling. In the claim application
however, the Applicant Sri Pintu Pal has mentioned that his father was
travelling on 28.04.2018 from Jamtara to Vidyasagar by Sealdah
Muzaffarpur fast passenger train no. 53131 having a valid second class
ticket. If this was the case, the same should have been mentioned in the
Fardbayan also. The Inquest Report and the Final Report also do not find
mention the train number from which the deceased fell down and died. The
statement of the Keyman who was the first person to see the dead body on
the track has given his statement in which he says that on seeing the dead
body, it appears that death was due to dashing by some train. No valid
journey ticket has been found from the possession of the deceased and as per
report of the ASI/RPF, the cause of the death could not be ascertained due to
lack of consolidated evidence.
On cross-examination by the Counsel for the Respondent, the
Applicant Sri Pintu Pal has mentioned that his father did not call him
"regarding any over-crowd in train or never he was using mobile phone."
His answers in the cross-examination are contrary to the statement made
under Para 4 of the Affidavit and under Para 5 of the claim application that
his father had informed him over the phone that he had purchased a railway
ticket, boarded the over-crowded train no. 53131 and was standing near the
exit gate of the train due to lack of accommodation. In view of the above, it
is not conclusively proved that the death was due to accidental fall from a
running train. The bonafide of the passenger has also not been established."
4. Learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha has
submitted that the learned tribunal has taken hyper technical view beyond
the weight of evidence available on record and arrived at written conclusion.
It is fairly proved through cogent and reliable evidence both oral as well as
documentary that the deceased was having a valid ticket of journey and he
died in an untowards accident while boarding on a train overcrowded by
people. The police investigation report and other documents proves the
above facts beyond the doubt. No cogent material has been brought on
record to rebut the above true facts. It is further submitted that the Railway
Act, 1989 is a beneficial legislation which must be construe in a manner
which fulfill the objects of the Act and not to put unnecessary resistance on
genuine claims. The impugned order is not justified in law and fit to be set
aside.
5. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon Judgment rendered in
Union of India Versus Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 and Union
of India Versus Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors. reported in (2008) 9
SCC 527.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently
opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and
submits that learned tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that
deceased was not a bonafide passenger and death was also not due to
accidental fall from a running train.
7. I have given anxious consideration to the overall aspects of the case
alongwith findings recorded by learned tribunal. It is well settled law that
even absence of ticket is not sufficient to deem the passenger to be not a
bonafide passenger. In the instant case there are unrebutted oral and
documentary evidence showing that the deceased while boarding on a
crowded train was pushed from some passenger due to sudden jerk and
intense jostling amongst the passenger and fell down form the moving train
in between Kaseetar and Vidyasagar.
8. In the case of Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors. (supra) relied
upon by the learned counsel for the appellants wherein a lady trying to board
on a train fell down on railway track and was run over by the train.
Consequently she died. Her legal representatives filed a claim before the
Railway Claims Tribunal. The evidence of one of the prosecution witness
was disbelieved by the tribunal on the assumption that if he had been present
on the spot, he would have been helped the station master in removing the
dead body from Railway Track, more over, the police would have recorded
his statement. However, evidence of defendants witness (station master)
corroborated the evidence of the said prosecution witness. The station
master stated that the deceased had attempted to board a train and fell down
from the running train. The Tribunal held that it was not an "untowards
incident" within the meaning of the said expression in Section 123 (c) of the
Railway Act, 1989, as the same was not an accidental falling of the
passenger from a train carrying passengers. However, the High Court held
that the case comes within the expression "accidental falling of a passenger
from the train carrying passenger" which was an "untowards incident"
therefore, the High Court awarded a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs with
interest on 12% from the date of the petition till the date of the payment.
Against that order, the Union of India file the appeal by special leave.
Before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the appellant Union of India
contended that there was no fault on the part of the Railways and that there
was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
Dismissing the appeal, Hon'ble Supreme Court held " it will not
make any difference whether the deceased was actually inside the train when
she fell down or whether she was only trying to get into the train when she
fell down. In either case, it amounts to "accidental falling of the passenger
from a train carrying passengers". Hence, it was an "untowards incident" as
defined under Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989. It was also held
that since the provision of compensation in Railways Act is beneficial piece
of legislation, it should receive liberal and wider interpretation and not
narrow and technical one. Hence, the later of the said two interpretation i.e.
one which defines the object of the statute and serves it purpose should be
preferred. Beneficial or welfare statute should be given liberal and not literal
or strict interpretation.
9. In the light of above discussion, I find that impugned judgment is not
justified under law, which is hereby set aside. It is held that deceased was a
bonafide passenger, who died due to "untowards incident" and the
appellants being the dependents of the deceased are entitled to compensation
under Section 124(A) of The Railways Act, 1989 to a sum of Rupees Eight
Lacs (Rs. 8,000,00/-) with interest @ 6 % from the date of filing the
application till the date of realisation. The aforementioned amount shall be
deposited within six weeks before the tribunal and learned tribunal shall
distribute the amount in equal proportion among the appellants, subject to
due verification. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned
judgment dated 26.03.2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi
is set aside.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Rajnish /- A.F.R.
