Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Uma Devangan vs Union Of India on 29 May, 2024
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 29 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 6631 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. UMA DEVANGAN W/O LATE SHRI BHAGWAT
DEVANGAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O SHIVAJI CHOWK,
RAMNAGAR, MUKTIDHAM , BHILAI, TAH. AND
DISTT. DURG (C.G.) (CHHATTISGARH)
2. DEEPESH KUMAR DEVAGAN S/O LATE BHAGWAT
DEVAGAN, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
MINOR THROUGH GUARDIAN MOTHER
SMT.UMA DEVAGAN SHIVAJI CHOWK
RAMNAGAR MUKTIDHAM BHILAI
(CHHATTISGARH)
3. ANIRUDHA DEVAGAN S/O LATE BHAGWAT
DEVAGAN, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
MINOR THROUGH GUARDIAN MOTHER
SMT.UMA DEVAGAN SHIVAJI CHOWK
RAMNAGAR MUKTIDHAM BHILAI
(CHHATTISGARH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI SHAFIQULLAH - ADVOCATE )
AND
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANEGAR
DACHHID PURVI MADHYA RELWAY , BILASPUR, C.G.
(CHHATTISGARH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI C.M.TIWARI - ADVOCATE )
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
With the consent learned counsel for the parties, heard finally at motion
stage.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 23 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 19.09.2019
passed in case no.OA/IIV/BPL/2014/465 by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal
Bench seeking setting aside of impugned judgment and for grant of suitable
compensation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that Tribunal has wrongly
dismissed appellant's claim petition on the basis of DRM report. No evidence
has been led in support of DRM report. Further, tribunal has rejected
appellant's claim petition on the basis of statement of Shri A.V.Rao, Loco-pilot
of concerned passenger train. It is also urged that in the instant case, accident
occurred on 26.06.2012 and claim petition has been filed on 26.2.2014.
Statement of Shri A.V. Rao, loco-pilot has been recorded on 23.5.2015.
Therefore, relying upon Kalandi Charan Sahu and Another Vs. General
Manager, Sourth-East Central Railway, 2018 ACJ 1460 , it is urged that
on the basis of statement of Shri A.V.Rao, claim petition cannot be dismissed.
4. Further, relying upon Kamukayi Vs. Union of India, AIR 2023
SCC 2761 and Smt.Neki Bai and Others Vs. Union of India, 2013(5)
MPHT 265, it is urged that just on the ground that deceased body has been cut
into two pieces, it cannot be said that deceased did not fell from train.
5. Further, relying upon Smt.Motilila Wd/o Pruthviraj Gajbhiye and
Another Vs. Union of India in First Appeal No.117 of 2022 decided on
02.01.2023, it is urged that in the instant case, respondents have not filed loco-
pilot diary. If above loco-pilot diary has been filed in the case, then, it would
have made clear as to whether Shri A.V.Rao's statement recorded on
23.05.2014 is truthful or not. Therefore, Shri A.V.Rao's statement cannot be
relied upon. On above grounds, it is urged that tribunal has wrongly dismissed
appellant's claim petition. Therefore, appeal filed by the appellants be allowed
and suitable compensation be awarded.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent after referring to impugned
judgment, especially para 7 and 8, submits that there is contradiction in
deposition of applicant witness Smt.Uma Dewangan as to who dropped
deceased at station. Whether deceased's brother dropped deceased at station or
her husband's friend had dropped at the station. It is also urged that applicant
has not examined brother of deceased/friend of deceased and no explanation
has been furnished from the same. It is also urged that station diary as well as at
page 10 DRM report R/1, it is mentioned that a person has been run over.
Therein, it is not mentioned that any passenger had fell down from the running
train. Therefore, tribunal has rightly dismissed appellant's claim petition.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the case.
8. So far as death of deceased is concerned, in the instant case, accident
occurred on 26.6.2012. Question before this Court is whether death of
deceased comes within the purview of untoward incident as defined under
Section 124A of Railways Act, 1989 and whether deceased was a bonafide
passenger.
9. Perusal of page 10 of DRM report reveal that on 26.6.2012, a report
was sent by guard G.Ramji/driver A.V.Rao to the effect that a person has been
run over. In copy of station diary attached with DRM report (page no.11)
reveals that therein in information dated 26.6.2012 it is mentioned that as per
memo given by guard, it has been informed that a person has been run over.
Loco-pilot A.V.Rao's statement has been recorded on 23.5.2014 and it is
attached at page no.14 of DRM report and therein it is mentioned that a person
was run over by his train and he immediately gave information to guard
G.Ramji.
10. In view of above documents, it is immaterial that respondent has not
filed loco pilot diary and statement of loco pilot A.V.Rao's statement recorded
after claim petition has been filed. Further, in the instant case, deceased's body
has been found in two pieces.
11. Appellants have examined Smt.Uma Dewangan and she has deposed
in para 5 of her examination-in-chief that her husband's friend had told him that
he had left her husband at Raipur station at about 12.30 to 1:00 for boarding
local train from Raipur to power house. This witness has admitted in her cross-
examination that Arjun Singh, friend of her husband, had not told him as to
when he left her husband at railway station Raipur.
12. Perusal of record of the case reveal that appellants have not examined
above Arjun Dwangan. No explanation has been furnished for not examining
above material witnesses.
13. Hence, in view of discussion in foregoing paras, principle of law laid
down in Smt.Motilila(s upra), Kalandi Charan Sahu(supra),
Kamukayi(supra) and Smt.Neki Bai(supra), do not apply to the facts of the
case.
14. Hence, in view of discussion in the foregoing paras, in this Court's
opinion, from evidence on record, it is not established that deceased fell from
running train. Thus, in the instant case, it is not established that death of
deceased comes within the purview of "untoward incident" as defined in
Section 124A of Railways Act, 1989.
15. Therefore, appellants are not entitled to receive any compensation.
Hence, no interference is required in the findings recorded by the Tribunal.
16. Hence, this appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
sm
