Orissa High Court
Udaya Mahani vs Union Of India on 9 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.326 of 2022
Udaya Mahani .... Appellant
Mr. S. Sahoo, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent
Mr. P.P. Behera, C.G.C. for Union of India
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
09.12.2022
Order No.
I.A. No.490 of 2022
02. 1. Heard Mr. S. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.
P.P. Behera, learned C.G.C. for Union of India- Respondent.
2. Upon hearing both the parties and considering the grounds
mentioned in the petition, the delay in filing the appeal is
condoned.
3. The I.A. is disposed of.
FAO No.326 of 2022
4. Heard Mr. S. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Appellant-
claimant and Mr. P.P. Behera, learned C.G.C. for the Responent-
Union of India.
5. Present appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment
dated 25.04.2022 passed in OA (IIU)/77/2018 by the Railway
Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar wherein
learned Tribunal has refused to grant any compensation by
disbelieving the case of the claimant.
6. Perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned
Tribunal disbelieved the case of the Appellant-claimant mainly on
the ground that it is a case of suicide according to DRM report
and keeping in view the nature of injuries.
7. The case of the claimant is that, the deceased, who had gone to
Puri for Darshan of Lord Jagannath and returning his village on
6.5.2017 in Puri-Ahmedabad Express, at Kalupadaghat Railway
Station due to sudden jerk and heavy rush in the compartment, he
accidentally fell down from the running train and died.
8. Three witnesses were examined from the side of the claimant.
Besides A.W.-1, the father of the deceased and the present
claimant, two other witnesses, viz. A.W.2 and A.W.-3 have been
examined. A.W.-2 is the witness who has seen the deceased
falling down from the running train and A.W.-3 is the witness
who has seen the deceased purchasing journey ticket at Puri
Railway Station.
9. Such evidences adduced by A.W.-2 and A.W.-3 are not
sufficiently rebutted in their cross-examination to disbelieve their
statements. It is further seen from the inquest report as well as the
GRPS UD enquiry report, that, the deceased died due to
accidental fall from the train. One of the witnesses in course of
police enquiry has also stated so. But the Tribunal disbelieved all
such evidences mainly on the ground that the nature of injuries
sustained by the deceased justifies a case of suicidal death. It is
true that as per the post mortem report, the cause of death is due
to severance of the head by crushing of the neck. But this only
ground would not nullify the case of the Appellant that such an
injury would be impossible in case of accidental fall. Nowhere on
record any material is produced to satisfy that only in suicidal
cases, the head would be severed and not in accidental cases.
Therefore, such a conclusion arrived by the Tribunal, only based
on the nature of injury and against all such evidences adduced
through the eye-witnesses, is unsustainable. Accordingly, the
same is set aside.
10. The next ground is regarding non-availability of journey
ticket from possession of the deceased. The law is settled that
non-availability of the journey ticket would not always disentitle
the case of the applicant regarding bona-fideness of valid journey
of the deceased. When A.W.-3 says that he has seen the deceased
purchasing the journey ticket from Puri Railway Station and no
rebuttal evidence is produced to the same, no point is there to
disbelieve said A.W.-3. Therefore, the bonafide journey of the
deceased in the train cannot be doubted and the claimant cannot
be denied compensation.
11. In the result, the impugned award is set aside. The appeal is
allowed and in terms of the principles decided in the case of
Union of India -vs- Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, the
Respondent - Union of India is directed to pay compensation of
Rs.8,00,000/- (rupees eight lakhs) to the claimant along with
interest @6% per annum from the date of accident, within a
period of four months from today. The entire compensation
amount including interest shall be disbursed to the claimant -
Appellant by keeping 50% of the same in fixed deposit in his
name, in any nationalized bank for a period of five years.
12. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
13. The copies of depositions and exhibits as filed by Mr. Sahoo,
learned counsel for the Appellant in course of hearing are kept on
record.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
