Maheswar Senapati vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 9832 Ori

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                     FAO No.78 of 2018
                 Maheswar Senapati                       ....            Appellant
                                             Mr. Kalpataru Panigrahi, Advocate
                                           -versus-
                 Union of India, represented through
                 General Manager, East Coast Railway,
                 Bhubaneswar                             ....          Respondents
                               Mr. A.K. Mohanty, Central Government Counsel

                           CORAM:
                           SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
                                         ORDER

22.8.2023 Order No.

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

2. Heard Mr. K.Panigrahi, learned counsel for claimant-Appellant and Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned Central Government Counsel for Respondent - Union of India.

3. Present appeal by the claimant is directed against impugned judgment dated 12th October, 2017 of the Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar passed in OA/IIU/293/2014, wherein the tribunal has refused to grant any compensation by disbelieving the case of the claimant.

4. According to the claimant, he was injured in an untoward incident on 14th May, 2014 while travelling from Rahama to Paradeep in Cuttack-Paradeep Passenger train.

5. The Railways denied the accident and sustenance of any injury by the claimant in any such untoward incident on 14th May, 2014.

6. The Appellant did not examine any independent witness in support of his case, except himself as A.W.1. No railway journey ticket in the train has been produced. No such witness except the claimant could come forward to say either to have seen travelling of the injured in the train in question or sustenance of injury by him in untoward incident. One extract copy note of General Railway Police, Paradeep was produced by the claimant to contend that the Station Superintendent of Rahama Railway Station sent an intimation to the GRP regarding fall of one passenger from the train on that alleged date and sustenance of injury by him. But the railways strongly denied sending of any such memo by the Station Superintendent to GRP. The claimant could neither be able to produce any memo issued by the Station Superintendent of Rahama Railway Station nor examine any witness to that effect.

7. The claimant was also failed to produce any journey ticket and pleaded that the same was lost during course of incident. The tribunal disbelieved such contention of the claimant by holding that in absence of any evidence produced regarding journey of the claimant in the train, the story advanced by him regarding loss of journey ticket is sheer falsehood. It is true that mere absence of journey ticket would not disprove the case of the claimant regarding his journey in the train. But here in the instant case in absence of any material or evidence produced to reveal journey of the claimant in the train in

question, the non-production of journey ticket would speak against him that he was not a bona-fide passenger of the train. Thus he failed to establish his claim on record.

8. For all such reasons discussed above, the finding of learned tribunal is confirmed and it is held that the Appellant has failed to establish his case regarding sustenance of injury in any untoward incident.

9. In the result the appeal is dismissed.

( B.P. Routray) Judge M.K.Panda

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Senior Steno Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 22-Aug-2023 17:59:27