Jharkhand High Court
Most Reena Kuwar(Devi) vs Union Of India Represented Through G.M. ... on 5 February, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A No. 439 of 2015
-----
1. Most Reena Kuwar(Devi), W/o Late Om Prakash Vishwakarma
2. Jawahar Vishwakarma, S/o Late Ganesh Vishwakarma
Both R/o Village/Mohalla-Rabda Tola Kewaloar, PO &PS-Chainpur,
District-Palamu ... Appellants
Versus
Union of India represented through G.M. East Central Railway, PO
&PS- Hajipur ... Respondent
......
CORAM : SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
------
For the Appellant(s): Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta @ Rahul Gupta, Advocate
: Ms. Swati Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGC
.........
15/05.02.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. The claimants have preferred this appeal against the dismissal of the
claim application vide order dated 28.04.2015 passed by Member
(Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, in Case No.
OA(IIU)/RNC/2010/0113.
2. Appellant Reena Kuwar is the widow of the deceased Om Prakash
Vishwakarma (age 27 years), who died in a railway accident while
travelling from Bangalore city to Garhwa Road on a valid 2nd class
ticket having No. 69160378 dated 16.10.2007. The ticket was
recovered from his possession and a photocopy of the said ticket was
adduced into evidence.
3. The learned tribunal dismissed the claim application by disbelieving
the copy of the railway ticket produced on behalf of the claimants. The
only ground on which the ticket was not accepted and the deceased
was held not to be a bona-fide passenger was that the said ticket dated
16.10.2007 was valid for journey from Bangalore city to Garhwa road
whereas Tori station is about 100 kms after Garhwa road station,
where the accident took place.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that the
finding recorded by the tribunal is not factually or legally correct. It
has been held by the Apex Court in Union of India v/s Rina Devi,
(2019) 3 SCC 572 and Jameela and ors. v/s Union of India, (2010)
12 SCC 443, that the onus is not on the claimants to produce the valid
tickets of the deceased and a claim application cannot be turned down
on the ground that the said ticket was not produced.
5. It is also submitted that learned Tribunal erred on facts as well. As per
the inquest report Ext.A3, the ticket was recovered from the
possession of the dead body. Tori station lies in between Bangalore
city to Garhwa road and it was factually incorrect to hold that Tori
was 100 km after Garhwa station and not between Bangalore and
Garhwa Road station.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent- Union of
India has defended the impugned order. It is argued that compensation
can be awarded only in a case where the bona-fide passenger suffered
in a railway accident. There is finding of fact that the deceased was
not a bona-fide passenger.
7. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, I find
force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants that the
learned Tribunal committed an error in shifting the onus of disproving
the bona-fide of the deceased on the claimants. This is more so for the
reason that the photocopy of the ticket was produced which was found
along with the body of the deceased.
8. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and as per ratio laid down
in the judgment reported in Union of India v/s Rina Devi, (2019) 3
SCC 572 the claimant(s) is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs
along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim
application till its realization as per the old Act under section 124 A of
the Railways Act, 1989.
9. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed.
10. Pending IAs if any, stands disposed of.
(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
KNR/Abha/-
