Jharkhand High Court
Sri Sudhir Sah vs Union Of India Through The General ... on 15 October, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:31985
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 432 of 2024
1. Sri Sudhir Sah, Father of Kanhaiya Kumar
2. Smt. Bijaya Devi @ Vijaya Devi, mother of deceased Kanhaiya Kumar,
Both are R/o Village/Mohalla-Nonia, P.O.-Bhairoganj, P.S.-Chandan,
Katoria, Dist.-Banka, Bihar .... .... Appellants
Versus
Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata,
P.O. & P.S.-Kolkata, Dist.-Kolkata .... .... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent-UOI : Mrs. Niki Sinha, C.G.C.
-----
Oral Order
06 / Dated : 15.10.2025
1. This misc. appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order
dated 31.03.2023 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Case
No. OA(IIU)/RNC/114/2019, whereby and whereunder, the claim
application for compensation under Section 16 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987 has been dismissed.
2. As per the case of the claimant, deceased Kanhaiya Kumar had gone to
Kolkata to meet his father. While returning from Howrah to Simultala,
on 31.05.2019, by Train No. 13019 Bagh Express, he fell down from
the running train resulting in his accidental death.
3. It is contended that the father of the deceased had purchased the ticket
and sent him by the said train, but the deceased did not reach his
destination and his dead body was found between JSME and Tulsitar
near KM No. 328/22-328/24. He was identified by Voter Identity Card.
Altogether two witnesses were examined and the relevant documents
including the certified copy of the station memo, inquest report,
fardbeyan, FIR, Postmortem report has been adduced into evidence and
marked as Exts.
4. Learned Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that
there was no eye witness to the accident and the claimant had failed to
produce the ticket of the deceased.
2025:JHHC:31985
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the documents
adduced into evidence like inquest report, final report, DRM report and
postmortem report all cumulatively suggest that the death was due to
accidental fall from the running train. In this circumstance, the claim
application could not have been dismissed merely on the ground that
the claimant failed to produce the passenger ticket and there was no eye
witness to the incident. Reliance in this regard is placed on (Union of
India Vs. Rina Devi) (2019) 3 SCC 572.
6. Ms. Niki Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Railways,
has vehemently opposed the misc. appeal and defended the impugned
order and submitted that, had it been an accidental death by fall from
the train, the matter would have been reported by the driver or guard or
any coach attendant of the said train. However, there is no such
evidence. On inquiry, finding has been recorded in the inquiry report by
the DRM that the cause of death was not being done by an unknown
train.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides
and on perusal of the materials on record, admittedly there is no eye
witness to the accident and passenger ticket has also not been produced.
8. The main point for consideration is whether the claim application could
have been dismissed on the above two grounds when there are contrary
evidences suggesting an accidental death in railway accident while the
deceased was travelling on a train. The documents are none other but
the documentary evidences adduced on behalf of the railways which
have been marked as exhibits by the Tribunal. In the inquest report
(Ext.A-2), it has been specifically stated in Column-9 that the death was
due to fall from a running train. UD Case No. 15/2019 was registered
after the dead body was found on the railway track on 01.06.2019. As
per the inquest report, the death was due to accidental fall from the
running train. In the postmortem examination report (Ext.A-6), the
cause of death has been attributed due to accidental fall and rail track
injury. On weight of these evidences, it is difficult to agree with the
finding of the DRM report (Ext.R-1) that the death was a result of being
knocked down by the train.
2025:JHHC:31985
9. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to cause of death is, therefore,
not sustainable and is set aside.
10. Since the accident took place on 01.06.2019, therefore, in terms of Rule
3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation)
Rules, 1990, Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) is awarded to the
claimants/appellants with interest @ 7.5% from the date of accident
which will be paid by the respondent-Railway within a month of the
order.
Misc. Appeal stands allowed. Interlocutory Application, if any, is
disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT/Satendra
Uploaded
17.10.205
