Jharkhand High Court
Union Of India Through The General ... vs Ramani Devi on 17 October, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:32384
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 7 of 2025
Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, P.O. &
P.S.-Vaishali, Hajipur, Bihar .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Ramani Devi, W/o deceased-Vasudeo Das
2. Rajani Kumari, D/o deceased-Vasudeo Das
3. Rajbir Kumar Das, S/o deceased-Vasudeo Das
4. Sulekha Kumari, D/o deceased-Vasudeo Das
5. Sita Kumari, D/o deceased-Vasudeo Das, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 being
minor are represented through their natural guardian respondent No.1,
All are R/o Village-Jamua, P.O.-Jamua, P.S.-Chitra, Dist.-Deoghar,
Jharkhand .... ....
Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Appellant-UOI : Mrs. Niki Sinha, C.G.C.
For Respondents : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
-----
Oral Order
06 / Dated : 17.10.2025
1. Union of Inda through the General Manager, Eastern Central Railway is
in appeal before this Court against the award of compensation passed
by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. OA
(IIU)/RNC/2/2024, whereby and whereunder, a compensation of Rs.8
Lakh has been awarded under Section 16 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 123(c)(2) and Section 124-A of
the Railways Act for the death of deceased Vasudeo Das in a railway
accident.
2. As per the case of the claimants, deceased Vasudeo Das on 25.04.2019
proceeded on a railway journey from Jamtara to Ranchi after having
purchased Ticket No. UTH 95281422 and with a return Ticket bearing
No. UWE 24245494 from Ranchi to Jamtara. It is further case that
because of excessive rush in the train, probably he changed the train
and proceeded by Janshatabdi Express on 26.04.2019. He was supposed
to get down at Gomoh railway station, however, his dead body was
found on 27.04.2019 at about 8:00 am. at Chichaki Railway Station
near Electric Poll No. 333/2009 which is at a distance of 30 km from
2025:JHHC:32384
Gomoh station. Two railway tickets were found on his dead body by
RPF personnel.
3. U.D. Case No. 15/2019 was registered. During trial, one of the
claimants has been examined as the witness and the following
documents were adduced into evidence:
(i) Two original journey tickets-Ext. A-1
(ii) Certified copy of Station Memo- Ext. A-2
(iii) Certified copy of fardbayan-Ext. A-3
(iv) Certified copy of Final Report-Ext. -A-4
(v) Certified copy of Inquest Report- Ext. A-5
(vi) Certified copy of post-mortem report- Ext. A-6
(vii) Photo copy of Death Certificate- Ext. A-7
(viii) Photo Copy of Family Details Certificate- Ext. A-8
(ix) Photo copy of Aadhar Card of Ramani Devi
(x) Photo copy of Aadhar Card of Rajani Kumar Das
(xi) Photo Copy of Aadhar Card of Rajbir Kumar Das
(xii) Photo Copy of Aadhar Card of Sulekha Kumari
(xiii) Photo Copy of Aadhar Card of Sita Kumari
(xiv) Mandate form of the applicants
(xv) Photo copy of bank particulars of the applicants
4. The claim was contested by the Railway on the ground that the place
from where the dead body was found i.e. Chichaki Railway Station was
Gomoh-Gaya route and not the route of Ranchi to Jamtara and,
therefore, there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was
travelling as a bona-fide passenger with valid ticket.
5. The Tribunal recorded a finding that there was every possibility that the
deceased could not get down at Gomoh Railway Station to take another
train and tried to alite at Chichaki Railway Station which was
approximately at 33 km. from Gomoh resulting in the accident. The
Tribunal discounted the possibility of any mala-fide, as the deceased
was found to be carrying both, to and fro journey from Jamtara to
Ranchi and back.
6. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no cogent
and convincing evidence to account for the dead body which was not
enroute for which the ticket was purchased i.e. Ranchi to Jamtara. The
deceased had no valid ticket to have reached the place of occurrence.
Unless and until it is established that the deceased was a bona-fide
2025:JHHC:32384
passenger for the relevant segment of the train route, the railways
cannot be fastened with liability to pay the compensation.
7. Learned counsel for the claimants has defended the impugned
judgment.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the
appellant, the point for determination before this Court is whether there
exists any ground to differ with the finding of fact recorded by the
Tribunal.
9. It is a settled law that while exercising the appellate jurisdiction, if there
are two views possible, then it is not open for the Appellate Court to
take a different view than taken by the Tribunal/Trial Court. The
undisputed facts that emerge on the basis of documentary evidence, is
that the deceased was travelling with tickets. It is also not disputed that
the dead body was found from the railway track near a railway station.
As per fardbeyan (Ext. A-3), the death occurred due to railway
accident. U.D. Case was registered which has been adduced into
evidence and marked as exhibit. The evidence which has been brought
on record on behalf of the railways includes the tickets which were
recovered from the dead body found, as per inquest report, the cause of
death was by fall from a running train, resulting in fatal injuries.
10. The cumulative effect of all the documentary evidences leads to an
inescapable conclusion that the deceased was a bona-fide passenger and
his death took place due to railway accident. I do not see any reason to
differ with the finding as recorded by the learned Tribunal.
Under the circumstance, I do not find any merit in this misc. appeal,
which is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending, I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT/Satendra
Uploaded
17.10.2025
