Jharkhand High Court
Aladi Hembram vs Union Of India Through The General ... on 3 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:17739
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 365 of 2024
1. Aladi Hembram, Wife of Late Badal Hembram, aged about 48 years
2. Krishna Hembram, Son of Late Badal Hembram, aged about 30 years
Both appellants are resident of Village/Mohalla- Bhurkunda Bari,
P.O.- Nirsa, P.S.- Nirsa, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
... Appellants
-Versus-
Union of India through the General Mangaer, Eastern Railway,
Kolkata, P.O. and P.S. Garden Reach and District- Kolkata (West
Bengal) ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Appellants : Mrs. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha, Advocate
Mrs. Chainika, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, C.G.C.
Mr. Shashank Kumar, A.C. to C.G.C.
-----
04/03.07.2025 Heard Mrs. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. This appeal has been preferred being aggrieved by the judgment
dated 10.08.2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in
Case No. OA(IIU) RNC/198/2018 (Checklist No. 2910180012), whereby, the
claim case filed by the appellants herein has been rejected by the learned
Tribunal.
3. Mrs. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants
submits that the deceased was travelling from Katpadi Junction to Chennai
Junction after purchasing a valid 2nd Class ticket bearing Ticket No.
23788388 and after that he boarded a superfast train from Chennai Central
Station to Dhanbad Junction on 01.03.2018 after purchasing a valid 2nd
Class ticket bearing Ticket No. 18276667. There was a heavy rush on the
train. Enroute, while the said train was running between Kumardubi and
Mugma Stations on 04.03.2018, the deceased was coming back from the
2025:JHHC:17739
toilet, suddenly he slipped due to a wet and slippery surface near the
opened gate of the bogie due to an overflow of water coming out from the
jammed water basin and as a result of which the deceased rolled towards
the gate and accidently, fell down from the running train between K.M.
232/23 and 232/25 of up line on account of wet and slippery surface of the
bogie and died on the spot by sustaining serious injuries. The cause of
death was almost instantaneous as a result of violent, hard and blunt force
injuries as mentioned in the post-mortem report. She further submits that
the railway police investigated the case and prepared the inquest report
dated 04.03.2018 in Rail P.S. Dhanbad (Kumardubi) U.D. Case No. 13 of
2018 registered on 04.03.2018 and found the factum of occurrence to be
true and the deceased died as a result of falling from some unknown train.
She then submits that the railway police also prepared a final report dated
04.03.2018 in the aforementioned U.D. case and concluded that the
deceased died as a result of falling from a train. She submits that the
deceased was a bona fide passenger and boarded a superfast train from
Chennai Central Station to Dhanbad Junction on 01.03.2018. The tickets of
2nd Class have also been found from the possession of the deceased. She
further submits that the inquest report, journey tickets, final report and
post-mortem report have been marked as Ext. P-8, Ext. P-5, Ext.P-9 and
Ext. P-10 & P-11 respectively of Trial Court record. She submits that
however the learned Tribunal has been pleased to reject the claim case
only on the ground that the journey of the deceased last at Dhanbad
Station, however, the dead body was recovered between Kumardubi and
Mugma Stations. She submits that in view of that ground the learned
Tribunal has doubted the untoward accident. She submits that when he
was travelling in a superfast train with a valid ticket, merely because
2025:JHHC:17739
finding of the body from some kilometers away from the last station,
cannot be a ground to not grant compensation in a legislature, which is
welfare in nature. On these grounds, she submits that the judgment passed
by the learned Tribunal may kindly be set-aside and direction may kindly be
issued for compensation to the claimants in light of the provisions made
under the Indian Railways Act, 1989 read with Railways Accident and
Compensation Rules, 1990 which has been later on amended w.e.f.
01.01.2017.
4. The said argument is being refuted by Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the respondent-Railway on the ground that the dead
body was recovered on 04.03.2018, whereas, the journey was already
ended on 03.03.2018. He submits that the journey ticket was only up to
Dhanbad, however, the dead body was recovered between Kumardubi and
Mugma Stations and in view of that, the learned Tribunal has rightly not
granted compensation to the claimants and in view of that, there is no
perversity in the judgment of the learned Tribunal.
5. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the
Trial Court Record. In view of the inquest report and final report which
have been marked as Ext. P-8 and Ext. P-9 respectively, the accident due
to fall from train is proved and in all these documents, it has been disclosed
that the accident took place due to fall from the train.
6. It is further an admitted position that the deceased started his
journey by way of purchasing two tickets of 2nd Class from Katpadi Junction
to Chennai Junction and from Chennai Central Station to Dhanbad Junction
and those tickets have been recovered from the body of the deceased,
however, the body was recovered between Kumardubi and Mugma Stations
2025:JHHC:17739
on 04.03.2018 and considering that aspect of the matter only, the learned
Tribunal has been pleased to reject the claim case of the appellants herein.
7. In the case of Union of India v. Rina Devi, reported in (2019) 3
SCC 572, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in clear terms that mere
absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim
that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant
which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and
burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the
facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with
from case to case on the basis of facts found. So far as the case in hand is
concerned, it is an admitted position that two tickets have been found
from the possession of the deceased and that has also been seized and
marked as Ext. P-5.
8. It is well-known that the passenger may not be allowed to enter the
platform if he does not possess the platform ticket. It is further in the
knowledge of everybody that there will be Train Ticket Examiners for all the
trains and number of such TTE's will be more in on superfast train and
reserved compartments. It is highly difficult for a person to travel long
distance from Katpadi to Chennai and then Chennai Central Station to
Dhanbad, however, the accident occurred between Kumardubi to Mugma
Stations and the only ticket from Dhanbad to Kumardubi was not found. A
person who has travelled for such a long distance cannot avoid such
examination/check by the TTE right from Kumardubi to Mugma Stations.
The deceased has completed his journey by the time of accident. There is
no dispute that the deceased was travelling in 2nd Class compartment.
9. The contention raised by the respondent-Railways which has been
accepted by the learned Tribunal was that the dead body was found
2025:JHHC:17739
between Kumardubi to Mugma Stations and for that reason, the deceased
cannot be considered as a bona fide passenger, as his journey ought to
have been ended at Dhanbad. As there is every possibility that the
deceased might have slipped while getting down at the station and that his
body might have been dragged to some distance from it, or that he
mistakenly might not have got down at the station where he has to get
down and after realizing the same could have tried to be get down after
crossing the same and as the untoward incident can be happened in
several contingencies. In view of that, the contention of the respondent-
Railways is not being accepted by this Court. The respondent-Railway has
not produced any direct witness to the incident. It is not in dispute that the
way in which the dead body was found would disclose that the death of the
deceased occurred on account of an accident. The respondent-Railway is
not able to prove that the death of the deceased occurred due to any of
the factors indicated under the proviso of Section 124-A of the Railways
Act, 1989. The railway has not been able to examine the driver of any train
to prove that the deceased was hit by a train and fell by the side of the
track. In the inquest report, U.D. Case and final report, in clear terms it has
been stated at the accident took place due to fall from the train.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds
that the learned Tribunal has erred in not providing compensation to the
claimants. The Court further finds that there is perversity in the judgment
of the learned Tribunal and, as such, the judgment dated 10.08.2021
passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. OA(IIU)
RNC/198/2018 is, hereby, set aside.
11. The appellants shall be entitled to sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees
Eight Lakhs) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the
2025:JHHC:17739
accident. The respondent-Railways shall release the amount in favour of
the claimants within a period of eight weeks from the date of the
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
12. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed in above terms and disposed of.
13. Let Trial Court Record be sent back to the concerned Tribunal
forthwith.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/ Simran/ A.F.R.
