Orissa High Court
Union Of India vs Smt. Namita Behera And Others on 5 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.706 of 2014
Union of India .... Appellant
Mr. B.K. Padhi, C.G.C.
-versus-
Smt. Namita Behera and others .... Respondents
Mr. B. Panigrahi, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
05.09.2022
Order No.
03. 1. Heard Mr. B.K. Padhi, learned C.G.C. for the Union of India-
Appellant and Mr. B. Panigrahi, learned counsel for Respondent
Nos.1 to 4-claimants.
2. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and award
dated 30.09.2014 passed in Case No. OA/IIU/2010/0023 by the
Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar
wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- along with
interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
application, i.e.,13.11.2010 has been granted to the claimants-
Respondent Nos.1 to 4 on account of death of the deceased,
namely Sudam Behera in the railway accident dated 16.11.2008.
3. The main contention raised on behalf of the Appellant is that
the date of accident being 16.11.2008 and the date of death on
17.2.2009, the death is not established to be arising out of the
accident. Secondly, it is submitted that the death of the deceased
in an untoward incident is not established.
4. Upon hearing Mr. B. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the
claimants-Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perusal of the impugned
judgment, it reveals that the fact of valid journey of the deceased
in Palasa-Cuttack DMU Passenger Train at the time of accident
with journey ticket is not disputed. A.W.2, the co-passenger has
said that the deceased was travelling in the train and he found him
missing at Khurda Road Station. It is to be noted that the
deceased in an injured condition was recovered from the railway
line at KM 600/10 between Berhampur and Jagannathpur
Railway Station on 16.11.2008 and immediately admitted in the
hospital with multiple injuries. After his discharge from the
Neurosurgery Department of MKCG Medical College &
Hospital, Berhampur in comma condition, he died on 17.2.2009.
Taking advantage of absence of post mortem examination report
of the deceased, the railway authorities raised their doubt about
death of the deceased due to the injuries arising out of the
accident.
5. For this purpose, the court examined two witnesses, viz.,
C.W.1 and C.W.2, who are the Doctors. They categorically have
said that as per the discharge certificate, the deceased was in
comma and he was admitted in the medical with history of RTA
having injuries of hemorrhagic contusions with penilesionale-
dema along with lacerated injuries over right and left orbital
ridges etc. Therefore, the learned Tribunal upon analysis has
concluded about death of the deceased arising out of the injuries
from the railway accident.
6. With regard to the contention made by the Appellant to
dispute about the untoward incident, it is seen that no ticket was
found from the person of the deceased at the time of his recovery
from near the railway track. But in view of the categorical
evidence of A.W.2 that remains un-rebutted from the side of the
railways, nothing is found there to disbelieve about the fact of
journey of the deceased in the Palasa-Cuttack DMU at the time of
accident. It is true that possession of ticket from the injured
particularly when he lost the sense cannot always be expected.
When the injured succumbed to the fatal injuries in the accident
there are many reasons to miss the ticket from his possession. In
the circumstances, it is important to see the evidence adduced
from the side of the claimants. Here in the instant case, the oral
evidence adduced from the side of the claimants that the deceased
was a bona fide passenger of the train has not been rebutted with
sufficient counter material and therefore cannot be distrusted.
7. In the result, the conclusion arrived based upon the analysis
made in the impugned award cannot be faulted with to disbelieve
the case of the claimants.
8. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
