T.Pushapavati @ T.Puspavathi & ... vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 3631 Ori

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                       FAO No.973 of 2019

                 T.Pushapavati @ T.Puspavathi & Ors.         ....        Appellants
                                                         Ms.D.Mohapatra, Advocate
                                              -versus-
                 Union of India                              ....      Respondents
                                                                  Ms.S.Patra, CGC


                           CORAM:
                           SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
                                          ORDER

18.04.2023 Order No.

04. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Ms.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Appellant and Ms.Patra, learned CGC for the Respondent.

3. Present appeal by the Claimants is directed against impugned judgment dated 31st October, 2019 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. No. 326 of 2015, wherein the learned Tribunal has refused to grant any compensation by disbelieving the case of the Claimants.

4. According to the Claimants the deceased while travelling in Vishakapatnam-Bhubaneswar Intercity Express Train No. 18412 on 19th November, 2015 from Mandasa to Rambha fell down from the running train accidentally in between Kaluparaghat and Gangadharpur Railway Station. His dead body was recovered from the railway track and Baidyanathpur PS UD Case No. 610 dated 19th November, 2015 was registered. The deceased was recovered

in injured condition and succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment at MKCG Medical College.

5. The Claimants have examined two witnesses in support of their contention and adduced several documents including inquest report, post-mortem examination report etc.

6. On the other hand, the Respondent-Railways have examined one witness viz. R.W.1, who is a RPF personnel and relied on same police papers as well as statutory report of the DRM.

7. The Tribunal upon adjudication disbelieved the case of Claimants regarding death of the deceased in any untoward incident mainly for absence of recovery of journey ticket of the deceased and absence of any report made to the station manager.

8. It is true that no journey ticket was recovered from possession of the deceased. But at the same time, according to the Claimants the journey ticket was lost in course of the accident and A.W.2 has said in his evidence to have seen the deceased boarding the train after purchase of journey ticket. The body of deceased was recovered from the railway track in an injured condition and taken to the hospital for treatment where he died on the same date. As per the post-mortem examination report all such injuries sustained are due to heavy, hard and force impact and possibly by fall from the running train. So, these circumstances as brought on record from the side of the Claimants and left un-rebutted coupled with evidence with A.W.2, do establish the fact of journey of the deceased in Intercity Express Train No. 18412 at the relevant time and he fell therefrom at the spot. So far as the status of the deceased as a bona fide passenger of the train is concerned, non-recovery of journey ticket, which has been emphasized by the Tribunal to disbelieve the

case of the Claimants, has little bearance in the opinion of this Court. It is for the reason that mere absence of journey ticket from possession of the deceased would not disprove his bonafideness as a valid passenger of the train in question. When the evidence of A.W.2 is not rebutted, who saw the deceased boarded in the train after purchase of journey ticket, the fact of travelling of the deceased in the train as a bona fide passenger is presumably established. The statement of A.W.2 regarding absence of his knowledge about seizure of journey ticket would not make his evidence untrustworthy. Therefore, in view of the circumstances brought in record, particularly keeping in view the place of recovery of the deceased, the opinion of the post-mortem doctor and the final opinion of the Inquiry Officer in police UD case, it is established that the death of the deceased is due to an untoward incident while he was travelling in Visakhapatnam-Bhubaneswar Intercity Express.

9. The claim application is accordingly allowed and the Claimant-Appellants being the widow and minor children of the deceased are found entitled to the compensation amount. As per 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 the compensation amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, or Rs.8,00,000/-, whichever is higher, within a period of four months from today, which shall be disbursed in favour of the Claimants- Appellants in equal proportion by keeping 50% of the shares fall due to each of the Claimants in fixed deposits in any nationalized bank separately for a period of 5 years.

10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

( B.P. Routray) Judge

S.Das