Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kinto Bai vs Union Of India on 12 October, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 12th OF OCTOBER, 2022
MISC. APPEAL No. 366 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. KINTO BAI W/O SHRI MANORINATH
SAPERA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O VILL.
BACHAWANI POST BANKHEDI DIST.
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. BHARTI D/O MANORINATH SAPERA, AGED
ABOUT 10 YEARS, OCCUPATION: THROUGH
NEXT FRIEND NATURAL GUARDIAN THERE
MOTHER SMT. KINTO BAI, R/O VILLAGE
BACHAWANI POST BANKHEDI, DISTT.
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. BHARATH NATH S/O MANORINATH SAPERA,
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR
THROUGH NEXT FRIEND NATURAL GUARDIAN
THERE MOTHER SMT.KINTO BAI VILLAGE
BACHAWANI POST BANKHEDI, DISTT.
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. UMESH NATH S/O MANORINATH SAPERA,
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR
THROUGH NEXT FRIEND NATURAL GUARDIAN
THERE MOTHER SMT.KINTO BAI VILLAGE
BACHAWANI POST BANKHEDI, DISTT.
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. GAPPU NATH SAPERA S/O PREMNATH, AGED
ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BACHAWANI
POST BANKHEDI, DISTT. HOSHANGABAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. CHOTI BAI W/O GAPPUNATH SAPERA, AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BACHAWANI
POST BANKHEDI, DISTT. HOSHANGABAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
SAN .....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI DEVENDRA RAJ SURYAWANSHI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2022.10.12 18:22:13 IST
AND
2
UNION OF INDIA THR. GENERAL MANAGER
WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. AYUSHI GUPTA, ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for hearing on this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the claimants/appellants under
Section 23 of the Railway Claims tribunal Act, 1987.
The appellants are aggrieved of the judgment dated 31st October, 2019
passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench in
O.A./IIu/BPL/196/2018 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim
petition not treating the deceased to be a bona fide passenger as no ticket was
recovered from his possession.
Shri Devendra Raj Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the appellants, in his
turn, submits that in the report made by the Police Station, Gadarwara, Distt.
Narsinghpur to the S.D.M., Gadarwara (Ex.A/5), there is a clear mention of
death of deceased-Manoj Nath, S/o Gappu Nath due to fall from rail. It is
further submitted that even in the DRM report dated 12th June, 2018 signed by
Enquiry Officer P.L. Goutam, Sub Inspector, Railway Protection Force,
Narsinghpur, it is mentioned that deceased had fallen down from some
unknown train at the place of the incident. Had he travelled at a safe place in the
train, incident could have been avoided. Railway authorities have not examined
any witness to prove negligence of the deceased. But, one fact is apparent that
Signature Not Verified
SAN
deceased was a passenger in the train and died due to fall from the train.
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2022.10.12 18:22:13 IST
Reliance is placed on the judgments of Coordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Hariram Vs. Union of India, 2015 (1) MPLJ 571 wherein it is
held that once Railways admitted in their written statement that victim deceased
died due to fall from running train, spot Panchnama corroborated case of
victim, then such finding negatives fact that death occurred due to crossing of
railway track..
In the case of Sanjulata Wd/o Surendra Kumar Chaudhary Vs.
Union of India, 2012 (4) MPLJ 424, it is held that absence of recovery of
ticket from the body of the deceased is not such a circumstance so to defeat
the claim filed by the claimants.
Ms. Ayushi Gupta, learned counsel for the Indian Railways, in her turn,
submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court int he case of Kamrunnissa Vs. Union of
India, (2019) 12 SCC 391, in para-8 has dealt with the issue of non-recovery
of ticket and has further recorded a finding in para-10 that first information
report leaves no room for any doubt that the deceased was seen coming from
the direction of Bangalore and while crossing the railway track, he having not
noticed the oncoming train, was ovrrun by the train. In view of such facts, it is
submitted that appeal filed by the claimant be dismissed.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, it is evident that document A-5 is the report made by SHO, Police
Station, Gadarwara, Distt. Narsinghpur to the SDM on 17/10/2016 in relation to
Marg No.68/16. In this report, there is a specific mention of death of deceased-
Manoj Nath on account of fall from the train. Similarly, in the report filed by the
Divisional Safety Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Jabalpur dated
12/6/2018 in the conclusion, there is a specific mention of the fact that there are
Signature Not Verified
SAN
no eye witnesses to the incident, but, as per the statement of the relatives of the
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2022.10.12 18:22:13 IST
deceased, he had visited the place of incident in connection with distribution of
marriage invitations for the marriage of his brother.
Even in conclusion, Enquiry Officer had concluded that deceased had
fallen down from a moving train. In view of such facts, onus shifted on the
railway authorities to prove that it was a case of deceased being run over by the
train while crossing the railway track and not a case of fall from the train. In
view of such facts when judgment of Coordinate Benches in Hariram (supra)
a n d Sanjulata Wd/o Surendra Kumar Chaudhary are taken into
consideration, then they are applicable in all force to the facts and
circumstances of the case.
The law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kamrunnissa (supra) is not applicable because in that case besides ticket
being not available, it has come on record in the testimony of the witnesses that
the deceased in that case was trying to cross the railway track unmindfull of a
train coming from the other side resulting in he being overrun by the train, that
being a distinguishable fact.
Thus, in light of the law laid down by Coordinate Benches of this Court
in the case of Sanjulata Wd/o Surendra Kumar Chaudhary (supra ) and
Hariram (supra), the finding recorded by the Railway Claims Tribunal
deserves to be set aside and are hereby set aside. Claim petition is allowed.
Railway authorities are directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rs.
Eight Lakh only) along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the date of actual payment.
Record of Railway Claims Tribunal be sent back immediately.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2022.10.12 18:22:13 IST
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ts
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2022.10.12 18:22:13 IST
