Jharkhand High Court
Prinyaka @ Priyanka Devi Aged ... vs Union Of India Through The General ... on 7 November, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 69 of 2021
1. Prinyaka @ Priyanka Devi aged about 30 years, wife of Late Pradeep Kumar
Singh @ Pradeep Singh
2. Palak Kumari aged about 8 years Minor D/o- Late Pradeep Kumar Singh @
Pradeep Singh
3. Ansh Raj Kumar aged about 6 years Minor s/o- Late Pradeep Kumar Singh
@ Pradeep Singh
4. Malti Devi aged about 61 years, W/o Ramnaresh Singh, mother of Late
Pradeep Kumar Singh @ Pradeep Singh
5. Ramnaresh Singh aged about 68 years S/o Indradev Singh and father of Late
Pradeep kumar Singh @ Pradeep Singh
Applicants 2 and 3 being minors are being represented by their natural
guardian Appellant no.1.
All residents of Village/ Mohalla-Ram Nagar Post and P.S.- Nabinagar,
District- Aurangabad Pin-824301(Bihar)
...... Applicants/Appellants
Versus
Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur,
P.O., P.S. and Dist- Hajipur (Bihar) ......Respondents
----------
For the Appellants : Ms. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha, Advocate
For the Union of India : Mr. Ramit Satender, CGC
----------
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 is directed against the judgment dated 18.10.2019
passed by Dr. S.K. Panday Member/ Technical, Bhubneswar Circuit Bench at
Ranchi in Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/137/2018 wherein learned Tribunal has
dismissed the claim application of the appellants on the ground that the
deceased has not died in an untowards incident and also on the ground that
deceased was not a bonafide passenger.
2. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in nutshell is that the deceased
Pradeep Kumar Singh @ Pradeep Singh after having purchased ordinary
railway passenger ticket bearing ticket no. 49465537 from Nabi Nagar to
Japla Railway station started boarding on a passenger train but due to crowd
of passengers and in the course of attempting to board on the train he was
pushed by the passengers, meanwhile, train moved and the deceased fell down
accidentally from the said running train at Nabi Nagar Railway Station itself.
The family members of the deceased were informed and arrived at the place
of occurrence. The UD Case no. 03 of 2018 was registered on the basis of
fardbeyan of brother of the deceased recorded by police on 08.01.2018. The
inquest report of the deceased was prepared on the spot wherein cause of
death is shown accidental fall from the running train. After investigation final
form (annexure 3) was submitted. The case of claimants/appellants is that the
deceased was a bonafide passenger and died in an untowards incident while
boarding on a passenger train. The appellants have claimed compensation of
Rs. 8,00,000/- (Eight Lacs) alongwith interest which has been rejected by the
learned tribunal and assailed in this appeal.
3. 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. The learned tribunal has taken superficial grounds
on the basis of station diary (exhibit R7) that the deceased had died through
passing goods train No. 27683 on 12.44 Hrs. and not by passenger train. It
was also observed that the journey ticket produced in this case was at 13.52
Hrs. although the accident happened at around 12.48 Hrs. Both the above
grounds have not been substantiated through any cogent and reliable
evidence. It is further submitted that the Railway Act, 1989 is a beneficial
legislation which must be constituted in a manner sub serving the objects of
the Act and not to put unnecessary resistance on genuine claims. The
impugned order is not justifiable under law and fit to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon reported Judgment 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.
5. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Ramit Satender has
vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the
appellants and submitted that deceased was not a bonafide passenger and
railway ticket produced was deliberately purchased after considerable pass of
time from the date of alleged accident. It was also revealed that deceased was
died due to accident by a goods train. It is also contended that mere presence
of dead body near Railway track raises no presumption towards untowards
incident, hence, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment calling for any
interference. The only point for determination is whether impugned judgment
is justified under law or not.
6. 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 parities between oral and
documentary evidence that the deceased while trying to board on a crowded
train was pushed from train by some passenger due to sudden jerk and intense
jostling amongst the passenger and fell down form the moving train at Nabi
Nagar station itself. The investigation report of UD Case No. 03 of 2018 and
fardbeyan of brother of deceased (annexure 1 & 2) as well as inquest report of
the deceased clearly indicates the circumstances and manner under which the
deceased died in an untowards incident while boarding on a passenger train.
There was no reason to disbelieve the aforesaid materials by learned tribunal
only on account of some extraneous collection of evidence showing that the
dead body of the deceased was found near railway track crushed by a goods
train. No co-relating evidence has been brought on record that the passenger
found crushed by goods train was the deceased of this case.
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.
7. It appears that appellants have adduced oral as well as documentary
evidence to substantiate their claim, on the other hand respondent has relied
upon DRM report only and no oral witness has been examined.
8. From perusal of the impugned order it is crystal clear that the claimants
have discharged their onus of proving the initial facts but the respondent have
miserably fell to discharge their onus to rebut the claimants evidence and
disbelieve their case. Therefore, I am of the firm view that the learned tribunal
has ignored the material evidence available on record and based its judgment
only on conjecture and surmises, hence, impugned judgment cannot be
sustained in law and liable to be set aside.
9. In the light of above discussion and reasons, I find that impugned
judgment is not justified under law, which is hereby set aside. It is held that
deceased was bonafide passenger who died due to "untowards incidents" due
to accidental falling from a passenger carrying train 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 i.e.
19.07.2018 till the date of realisation. The aforementioned amount shall be
deposited within six weeks before the concerned 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 is set aside.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Rajnish/- A.F.R.
