Jharkhand High Court
Shoshank Chaudhary vs The Union Of India Through The General ... on 9 September, 2024
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No.184 of 2021
----
1. Shoshank Chaudhary, aged about 23 years, S/o-Late Bundel Choudary.
2. Jhan Devi, Aged about 41 Years, W/o-Late Bundel Choudary
3. Bitu Choudhary (Minor), Aged about 16 Years, S/o-Late Bundel
Choudhary represented through his mother/natural guardian,
All Resident of village-Dhakdhaka, P.O.-Kasati, P.S.-Devipur, Distt.-
Deoghar (Jharkhand) .... .... Appellant(s)
Versus
The Union of India through the General Manager Eastern Railway, Kolkata,
having its office at Koilaghat Street, P.O. + P.S. - Koilaghat, Kolkata (W.B.)
.... .... Respondent(s)
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Santosh Kr. Jha, Adv.
Mr. Sumit Gautam, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Shiv Kr. Sharma, Sr. Panel Counsel
----
09/Dated: 09th September, 2024
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present miscellaneous appeal has been filed against the impugned
judgment dated 13.02.2020 passed in Case No.O.A.(IIu)/RNC/30/2019 by
the Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Chandigarh Railway Claims Tribunal,
Chandigarh, Circuit Bench at Ranchi, whereby the learned tribunal has
dismissed the claim application of the applicants seeking compensation
amount of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest from the date of filing of the claim
application.
3. It appears that the accident has taken place in which the father of the
claimant has died on 25.09.2018. The Tribunal has framed the following
issues.
(i) Whether this case comes under jurisdiction of Ranchi Bench?
(ii) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger as alleged?
(iii) Whether the deceased had died due to alleged untoward
incident?
(iv) Whether the applicant or other dependents of the deceased are
entitled to get compensation?
(v) Relief ?
4. It appears that the other factors have not been disputed save and
except the fact that the deceased has de-boarded the moving train. Since de-
boarding from a moving train is not untoward accident accordingly claim of
the applicant has been rejected. It has been found that otherwise the deceased
was bona fide passenger.
5. It appears that the said finding has been recorded on the basis of DRM
Report. This court has perused the DRM Report and it is nothing but error of
record. DRM Report does not suggest that the deceased has de-boarded the
moving train.
6. Thus the very basis of rejection of the claim is not sustainable rather is
beyond the record. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 13.02.2020
passed in Case No.O.A.(IIu)/RNC/30/2019 by the Hon'ble Member
(Judicial) Chandigarh Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, Circuit Bench
at Ranchi, is hereby quashed and set aside.
7. Since the other issue has been settled in favour of the claimant
entitling him for the compensation as per the law, the present miscellaneous
application is hereby allowed and the respondents are directed to pay
Rs.8,00,000/- with 7.5 per cent from the date of filing of claim till actual
payment.
8. With above direction, the present miscellaneous appeal stands allowed
and disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
Uploaded
