Orissa High Court
Kaibalya Pradhan And Another vs Union Of India on 8 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.512 of 2020
Kaibalya Pradhan and another .... Appellants
Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent
Mr. B.K. Padhi, C.G.C. for UoI
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
08.09.2022
Order No.
06. 1. Heard Mr. A. Tripathy, learned counsel for the claimants-
Appellants and Mr. B.K. Padhi, learned C.G.C. for Union of
India-Respondent.
2. Present appeal is directed against the judgment dated
21.01.2020 passed in O.A. No.61 of 2017 by the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar, wherein learned
Tribunal refused to grant compensation in favour of the
claimants.
3. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Appellants-claimants
submits that the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the
deceased committed suicide in front of the train is not well
founded with material evidence. Conversely, he was seen
purchasing ticket for journey in the concerned train as per the
evidence adduced from the side of the claimants.
4. After hearing Mr. B.K. Padhi, learned C.G.C. for Union of
India-Respondent and upon perusal of the impugned judgment, it
reveals that the claimants approached the Tribunal with their case
that the deceased while travelling in Samaleswari Express on
22.4.2014 from Baragarh to Barpali accidentally fell down from
the running train near Baragarh Railway station at Cabin No.11
and sustained injuries resulting death.
5. The claimants have examined two witnesses viz. A.W.1 and
A.W.2 on their behalf and the Railways examined one witness,
viz. R.W.1. Both parties have adduced their further evidences
including the copies of police papers and the enquiry report of the
DRM.
6. It is seen that R.W.1, who was the loco pilot of the train in
question at the relevant time, has stated in his evidence that on
that relevant date after departure of the train from Baragarh Road
Railway station, he saw a male person standing on the left side of
the railway track at KM No.606/6 and suddenly jumped in front
of the engine. He immediately stopped the train and informed the
matter to the duty guard. Such evidence of R.W.1 is found
supported from the enquiry report of the DRM dated 20.6.2016.
7. On the other hand, both the witnesses, A.W.1 & A.W.2
examined from the side of the claimants are not eye-witnesses
and they also did not travel in the same train. Therefore, on
consideration of evidence adduced from both sides, the
preponderance of probability is found heavier in favour of the
statement of R.W.1 that the deceased committed suicide by
jumping in front of the running train. This fact is further fortified
as no journey ticket could either be produced or recovered from
possession of the deceased.
8. Thus no illegality is seen in the approach of the Tribunal in
rejecting the case of the claimants on the finding that neither the
deceased was a passenger of the train nor any untoward incident
happened causing his death.
9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
