Orissa High Court
Sanjukta Majhi And Another vs Union Of India on 7 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.56 of 2021
Sanjukta Majhi and Another .... Appellants
Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India, represented through its
General Manager, East Coast Railway,
Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar .... Respondent
Mr. A.K. Mohanty, Central Government Counsel
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
7.2.2023
Order No.
04. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. D. Mohanty, learned counsel for the claimant -
Appellants and Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned Central Government
Counsel for Respondent - Union of India.
3. Present appeal by the claimants is directed against impugned
judgment dated 24th January, 2020 of the Members, Railway Claims
Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar passed in OA-
II/119/2016, wherein the tribunal has refused to grant any
compensation by disbelieving the case of the claimants.
4. As per the claimants, the deceased Banamali Majhi died in an
untoward incident while travelling in Faluknama Express Train
No.12703 on 8th September, 2015 from Bhubaneswar to Berhampur.
Two witnesses have been examined from the side of the claimants
Viz. A.W.1 and A.W.2. Amongst them, A.W.2 namely Malaya Kumar
Bisoi is stated to have seen the incident. As per him, he travelled
along with the deceased in the train and saw the deceased falling at
Khurda station towards end due to push and pull. But the tribunal
disbelieved A.W.2 as an eye witness to the incident, for the reason
that he did not intimate either any of the railway authority or family
members of the deceased about the incident. Further, the deceased has
been described as 'unknown' by GRPS in the UD case.
5. The admitted fact reveals that dead body of the deceased was
noticed lying on Up line towards end side of PF No.02 of Khurda
Railway Station at around 17:25 hours on 8th September 2015. The
inquest was held over the dead body and it was sent for post mortem
examination. According to post mortem examination report, the head
was completely crushed and brain matters came out. The skull bone
and facial bones were fractured into multiple pieces. In the opinion of
the tribunal, such injuries noticed on the dead body are not possible
due to fall from the running train rather being hit by the train. No
justifiable reason is there in such opinion of the tribunal. Because, it
cannot be conclusively opined that such injuries would be impossible
in a case of fall from running train or only possible in case of run over
by train. Such conclusion as arrived by the tribunal is without any
basis.
6. Under these circumstances, it is important to look into the
evidence brought on record. The claimants have examined two
witnesses and adduced the copies of UD Case record including the
PM and inquest report in support of their case. On the other hand, the
Railways did not adduce any evidence except filing the DRM's
enquiry report. As stated earlier, AW.2 has categorically stated that he
saw the deceased falling from the running train while travelling as a
co-passenger in the same train at the time of incident. When no
evidence has been adduced by the Railways to contradict such
evidence of A.W.2 and the circumstances as revealing from the
inquest report, P.M. report and police enquiry report in the UD case
are found supporting to the statement of A.W.2, it is held that the
claimants have successfully established their case regarding death of
the deceased in the untoward incident. The approach of the tribunal to
disbelieve the statements of A.W.2 based on some pre-recorded
statements of witnesses in the DRM's enquiry report, is found
improper as the contentions and conclusions in the DRM's enquiry
report has no evidentiary value per se without any independent proof
in respect of the same.
7. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned judgment
is set aside and it is held that the claimants have successfully
established their case regarding death of the deceased in the untoward
incident. The claimants being the wife and daughter of the deceased
are entitled to compensation accordingly.
8. In the result the appeal is allowed and in terms of 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 compensation
of Rs.4,00,000/- (four lakhs) to the claimant - Appellants along with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of accident or Rs.8,00,000/-
(eight lakhs), whichever is higher, within a period of four months
from today. The entire compensation amount including interest shall
be disbursed in favour of the claimant - Appellants by keeping 50%
of the same in fixed deposits in their names, in any nationalized bank
for a period of five years.
9. The copies of documents as produced by Mr. D. Mohanty in
course of hearing are kept on record.
10. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K.Panda
