Orissa High Court
Malati Dalai And Others vs Union Of India on 13 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.254 of 2020
Malati Dalai and others .... Appellants
Ms. D. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent
Mr. D. Gochhayat, C.G.C. for Union of India
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
13.12.2022
Order No.
02. 1. Heard Ms. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Appellants
and Mr. D. Gochhayat, learned C.G.C. for the Respondent-Union
of India.
2. Present appeal is directed against the judgment dated
28.01.2020 passed in Claim Application No. OA(IIu)/56/2017 by
the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench,
Bhubaneswar, wherein the learned Tribunal disbelieving the case
of the claimants has refused to grant any compensation.
3. The case of the claimants is that the deceased-Anjan Kumar
Dalai while travelling from Bhubaneswar to Sambalpur in
Tapaswini Express on 20.2.2017 accidentally fall down from the
running train near Mancheswar yard, and died.
4. Two witnesses have been examined from the side of the
claimants. The Railways-Respondent disputed the case of the
claimants that the death of the deceased is not due to an untoward
incident, but otherwise. Two witnesses have been examined from
the side of the Railways.
5. The learned Tribunal disbelieved the case of the applicants
mainly on the ground that, no one has seen the deceased falling
from the running train and secondly, the deceased is a resident of
Chandrasekharpur, which is not far away from the spot where the
dead-body was discovered. It is also observed by the Tribunal
that finding of the dead-body inside the track is normally
impossible in case of falling from the running train.
6. According to the evidence of A.W.2, he went with the
deceased to see-off him at Bhubaneswar Railway Station and the
deceased after purchasing train ticket boarded Tapaswini Express.
After departure of the train, A.W.2 left Bhubaneswar Railway
Station. However, no journey ticket was found from possession of
the dead-body of the deceased during the inquest. The Police
(GRPS) submitted the final report stating that the death of the
deceased is due to fall from the train. But in the DRM's enquiry
report, it is opined that the death is not due to accidental fall from
the running train and further, the travel of the deceased in
Tapaswini Express is not supported by any valid journey ticket.
7. The admitted facts remain that the dead-body of the deceased
was noticed by the driver of Train No.12838 at 22.15 hours on
20.2.2017 within the down line at KM 429/14-12 at MCS Yd. As
per the post mortem examination report, the cause of death is due
to severe cranial and cerebral injury, which is ante-mortem in
nature and could have been caused by trauma due to heavy blunt
force impact. Tapaswini Express left Khurda Railway Station at
20.55 hours and Bhubaneswar Railway Station at 21.30 hours.
8. The aforesaid admitted circumstances justifies that the
deceased was a traveler of Tapaswini Express that left
Bhubaneswar Railway Station at 21.30 hours on that day. It is for
the reason that, Train No.12838, whose driver noticed the dead-
body of the deceased after 45 minutes Tapaswini Express
departed from Bhubaneswar. The discovery of the dead-body first
by the driver of Train No.12838 is found consistent with the case
of the claimants, since Tapaswini Express passed through
Mancheswar yard just before that as per the schedule. The other
circumstance that justifies the case of the applicants regarding fall
of the deceased from the running train is that, the nature of
injuries noticed in course of post-mortem examination is well
consistent with the theory of falling down of a person from
running train.
9. Next coming to the circumstances against the case of claimants
are that, no valid journey ticket could be recovered from
possession of the dead-body of the deceased. But this would not
disprove their case because non-finding of a valid journey ticket
would not be always relevant for satisfying a valid journey.
Secondly, what the learned Tribunal has doubted regarding
position of the dead-body within the down track is that, according
to learned Tribunal, in case of a fall from a running train in the
mid section, the body would normally be thrown away from the
tracks. But this is a presumption only. Such a presumption would
not always be held good in absence of supported material. It is
not always true to conclude that in every case of fall from running
train, the dead body would be found away from the track.
Besides, no definite evidence has been produced on record to
reveal that it is the same track on which Tapaswini Express
passed through because two tracks are there at the spot. Therefore
this presumption taken to discard the case of the claimants by the
learned Tribunal is not sustainable.
10. The further suspicion crept into the mind of the learned
Tribunal is that the place of temporary residence of the deceased
at BDA Colony in Chandrasekharpur is not far away a place from
the Mancheswar Yard, where the dead-body was laying. This is
again a presumption, without any substantial material brought on
record, used against the case of the claimants.
11. The evidences produced by the Railways are not sufficient to
counter the evidence of either A.W.1 or A.W.2. Apart from all,
when the nature of injuries found on the dead-body are found
consistent with the theory of fall from running train, such
presumptions taken by the learned Tribunal in absence of specific
evidence would not stand against the case of the claimants to
deny that the death of the deceased is otherwise than accidental
fall from the running train.
12. In view of the discussions made above and based on the
evidences brought on record, the case of the claimants is
established on record. As such, they are found entitled for the
compensation with the finding that the deceased died in an
untoward incident while travelling in a train.
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is
set aside. The Respondent-Railways is directed to pay
compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (rupees eight lakhs) in favour of
the claimants by depositing the same before the learned Tribunal
along with interest @6% per annum from the date of accident, in
terms of the principles propounded in the case of Union of India
-vs- Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, which shall be disbursed in
favour of the claimants on such terms and proportions to be
decided by the learned Tribunal.
14. The copies of the depositions and documents filed by Ms. D.
Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Appellants in course of
hearing are kept on record.
15. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
