Orissa High Court
Sunita Sindur And Others vs Union Of India on 30 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.112 of 2014
Sunita Sindur and Others .... Appellants
Ms. Deepali Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India, represented through
the General Manager, South Eastern
Railways, Garden Reach, Kolkata .... Respondent
Mr. J. Nayak, Central Government Counsel
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
30.11.2022
Order No.
10. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Ms. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the claimant -
Appellants and Mr. J. Nayak, learned Central Government Counsel
for Respondent - Union of India.
3. Present appeal by the claimants is directed against impugned
judgment dated 3rd January, 2014 of the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar passed in OA No.(IIU)/23/2008, wherein the tribunal
has refused to grant any compensation in favour of the claimants by
disbelieving their case.
4. The case of the claimants is that the deceased namely, Sanjibani
Sinduru while going in 2b-B Passenger train from Bimalagarh, he fell
down accidentally from the train at the station after it started moving.
Accordingly Bundamunda/GRPS UD case No.35 of 2007 was
registered and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination.
5. Initially the claim application was decided by the Tribunal
consisting of two members who diverged in their opinion and
accordingly the matter was decided by the 3rd Member. The opinion of
the 3rd Member confirming the opinion of the Member (Technical) is
thus the final decision of the claim application, which is impugned in
the present appeal.
6. Ms. Mohapatra submits on behalf of the claimant - Appellants
that the learned tribunal has failed to appreciate the facts that the
deceased accidentally fell down from the running train and the
evidence of the eye witnesses has been disbelieved without any valid
reason.
7. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that two witnesses
have been examined on behalf of the claimants in addition to the
documentary evidence like the police inquest report, investigating
report, etc. No evidence was adduced from the side of the Railways.
8. AW-2, namely Pramod Jate has stated in his evidence that he
accompanied with the deceased in the train and they boarded 2b-B
Passenger train from Bimlagarh to Bondamunda station. The train was
overcrowded and after it started moving, the deceased lost his balance
due to jerk and accidentally fell down. The inquest report reveals that
the deceased died due to accidental fall from the running train and
accordingly police investigation report was submitted. The tribunal
has disbelieved the evidence of AW-2 as well as the police
investigation report mainly on the ground that as per the enquiry
report prepared by the Railways, there was no eye-witness to the
occurrence and no such report was given by the Railway Guard
regarding any untoward incident. Secondly, the deceased was not a
bona fide passenger of the said train.
9. There is no quarrel over finding the dead body of the deceased
from the railway line. According to AW-2, he along with the deceased
boarded the train after purchasing tickets at Bimlagarh. No rebuttal
evidence has been adduced from the side of the railways to deny such
statement of AW-2. Therefore, no reason is found to disbelieve this
eye-witness, who has clearly stated about falling of the deceased from
the running train due to jerk. The reason assigned by the Tribunal to
disbelieve the police report that the same was prepared without
examining any eye-witness, is not found justified since the opinion
arrived by police upon completion of investigation is never challenged
by anyone else. It is also the case of the Railways that the deceased
died by running over the 2b-B Passenger Train at the alleged time and
place and the dead body was found on Line No.1 at KM 452/16 near
the station building. So the circumstances speak in favour of the
claimants that the deceased died in an untoward incident due to
accidental fall from the running train.
10. It needs to be mentioned here that non-recovery of a valid
railway ticket from the dead body does not always disentitle the
claimants, or their case cannot be discarded for the said reason only.
The evidence of AW-2 being found trustworthy and the same, coupled
with the circumstances discussed above, establishes the case of the
claimants regarding death of the deceased in an untoward incident on
29th October, 2007. As such the impugned judgment is set aside.
11. In view of the discussions made above 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.4,00,000/- (four lakhs) to the
claimants 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 among the
claimant - Appellants, namely Sunita Sindur, Marry Sindur and Sahil
Sindur in the ratio of 50:25:25, and 50% of the share fall due to
claimant - Appellants 1 and 2, viz., Sunita Sindur and Marry Sindur
shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of
five years and the entire amount fall due to the share of claimant -
Appellant No.3, namely Sahil Sindur shall be kept in fixed deposit in
any nationalized bank for a period of five years or till he attains
majority, whichever is later.
12. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K.Panda
