Orissa High Court
[email protected] [email protected] And vs General Manager on 1 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.69 of 2022
[email protected] [email protected] and .... Appellants
others
Ms. D. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
General Manager, East Coast Railway, .... Respondents
Bhubaneswar and another
Ms. B. Sahu, C.G.C. for Union of India
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
01.02.2023
Order No.
02. 1. Heard Ms. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Appellants-
claimants and Ms. B. Sahu, learned C.G.C. for Union of India-
Respondents.
2. Present appeal by the claimants is directed against the
judgment dated 31.08.2021 passed in OA(IIU)/164/2017 by the
Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar,
wherein learned Tribunal has refused to grant any compensation
by disbelieving the case of the claimants.
3. The case of the claimants, who are the wife and parents of the
deceased, namely, Antaryami Mallik, is that the deceased while
travelling in East Coast Express from Howrah to Cuttack fall
down from the running train and died.
4. Two witnesses, Viz. A.W.1 and A.W.2 were examined on
behalf of the claimants and the documents like inquest report,
post-mortem examination report, etc. were filed on behalf of the
claimants. On the other hand, the Railways did not examine any
witness, but rely on the DRM's statutory inquiry report along
with the same Police papers relied by the claimants.
5. The learned Tribunal disbelieved the death of the deceased in
an untoward incident mainly in absence of production of journey
ticket and on the suspicion that the deceased might have
committed suicide.
6. The consistent case of the claimants is that the journey ticket of
the deceased was lost in course of the occurrence. Undisputedly,
the dead-body was found lying in UP Railway Track at KM
No.343/7-9 in between JJKR-JKPR Railway station and first
noticed by the on-duty night patrol man in the morning hours on
23.1.2017. According to the post-mortem report, the cause of
death is due to massive shock with hemorrhage and destruction of
the organ like brain in a railway traffic accident. The statutory
inquiry report of the DRM concludes with the finding that this
might have a case of falling from the train or a case of suicide.
The learned Tribunal in absence of recovery of journey ticket
from the dead-body during the inquest has concluded that this
may be a case of suicide.
7. It is true that mere finding of the dead-body on the railway
track would not satisfy the requirements of death consistent in
untoward incident. The initial burden to prove the case is always
on the claimants. In the case at hand, it is seen that both the
witnesses examined from the side of the claimants, particularly
A.W.2, who is the eye-witness, have stated to the effect that
A.W.2 saw the deceased boarding East Coast Express from
Howrah after purchasing journey ticket. Their evidences are not
rebutted by any counter evidence produced from the side of the
Railways. The specific evidence of A.W.2 is never controverted
by the Railways either through direct evidence or in the findings
of the DRM's enquiry report. When the circumstances of the
death of the deceased like finding of the dead-body from the
railway track with such injuries consistent with fall from running
train are there, mere absence of journey ticket would not disprove
the case of the claimants. It is well-settled that mere absence of
journey ticket does not mean that the deceased was never a
bonafide passenger of the train.
8. Accordingly, the findings of the learned Tribunal which are
mainly based on the suspicion without material evidence, is set
aside.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the claimants-
Appellants being the wife and parents of the deceased are found
entitled for compensation of the scheduled amount. The
Respondents are directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-
(rupees eight lakhs) along with interest @6% per annum from the
date of accident within a period of four months from today. The
compensation amount shall be disbursed among the claimants-
Appellants in equal proportion by keeping 50% of the shares fall
due to each claimants fixed for a period of five years in any
nationalized Bank.
10. The depositions and documents produced by Ms. D.
Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Appellants in course of
hearing are kept on record.
11. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
