Orissa High Court
Bhagirathi Mirdha & Anr vs Union Of India on 28 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.252 of 2020
Bhagirathi Mirdha & Anr. .... Appellants
Ms.D.Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent
Mr.A.K.Mohanty, CGC
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
28.02.2023
Order No.
04. 1. The matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard Ms.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the
Appellant and Ms.Sahoo, learned CGC for the Respondent-Union
of India.
3. Present appeal by the Claimants is directed against
award dated 10th February, 2020 of the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. No. 58 of 2017, wherein the learned
Tribunal has refused to grant any compensation by disbelieving
the case of the Applicants.
4. The case of the Claimants, who are the parents of the
deceased namely Silu Mirdha, is that the deceased while
travelling from Cuttack to Sambalpur in Train No.18473 (Puri-
Jodhpur express), after purchasing a valid journey ticket, died due
to accidental fall from the running train at Handapa station. The
deceased died in the hospital after three days of the accident.
5. The travelling of the deceased in Puri-Jodhpur express
is not disputed by the Railways. According to them, the deceased
travelled with general class ticket No. 50873121 valid from
Cuttack to Talcher and he over-travelled unauthorizedly beyond
Talcher and jumped from running train at Handapa station.
6. The Tribunal based on DRM's report has concluded in
favour of the Railways to observe that the deceased jumped from
running train at Handapa station. In this regard, the Tribunal
relied on the evidence of R.W.1, the sole witness examined from
the side of the railways and the contents of the DRM's report.
7. It is seen that the two witnesses viz. A.W.1 & 2 were
examined from the side of the Claimants. A.W.2 has stated that
he saw the deceased boarded the train after purchasing ticket at
Cuttack Railway Station. R.W.1 a RPF personnel has though
stated that the deceased had jumped from the running train at
Handapa along with his belongings, but admittedly he is not an
eye witness to the said occurrence. His evidence is based on the
statements of such witnesses examined in course of the inquiry
conducted in terms of the provisions contained in the Railway
Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incident)
Rules.
8. It is seen that the inquiry by the RPF was commenced
only after filing of the claim application though the admitted facts
remains that fall of the deceased from running train was reported
on the same date of accident to the Station Superintendent. The
railways did not examine those witnesses whose statements are
relied by R.W.1 to depose before the Tribunal. No reason was
also explained by said R.W.1 for not producing those witnesses
before the Tribunal. On the other hand, it is seen from the copies
of police inquiry report submitted in Magalabag P.S. U.D. Case
No.163 of 2017, registered for the death of the deceased namely,
Silu Mirdha at SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack and
other medical treatment papers, that, the sustenance of injuries by
the deceased is due to fall from running train. The initial report
made to the Station Superintendent of Handapa does not speak
anything regarding jumping of the deceased from running train.
So in view of all such factors, the statement of R.W.1, which is
completely based on the statement of others not brought before
the Tribunal, is not found creditworthy. Accordingly, the reliance
placed by the Tribunal entirely on such statement recorded in the
DRM's report that the deceased jumped from the running train is
found erroneous. Therefore, such finding arrived by the Tribunal
in the impugned judgment is set aside.
9. Keeping in view the circumstances discussed above
and the fact that the travelling of the deceased in Puri-Jodhpur
Express is not disputed, it is concluded that the death of the
deceased due to fall from running train is established on record.
10. Next coming to the question whether the deceased was
a bona fide passenger of said train, it is seen that no valid journey
ticket could be produced from the side of the Claimants. At the
same time, according to the railways the deceased was travelling
with a valid general class journey ticket from Cuttack to Talcher.
The connection of any such journey ticket with the deceased up to
Talcher only is not established on record and it is not known how
the Railways come to such conclusion that the deceased was
travelling up to Talcher only, particularly when no journey ticket
could be found from possession of the deceased. In such
circumstances, when the fact of journey of the deceased in the
train in question remains undisputed and according to the
Claimants the journey ticket was lost in course of the occurrence,
nothing can be concluded regarding ingenuiness of his journey in
the train. So it can safely be concluded that he was a bona fide
passenger of the train. Accordingly, it is held that the deceased
while travelling as a bona fide passenger in the train fell down
from running train and died concerning an untoward incident.
11. The Claimants being the parents of the deceased are
thus found entitled for compensation as per scheduled amount.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the Respondent-
Union of India is directed to pay the compensation amount of
Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date
of accident within a period of four months from today, which
shall be disbursed in favour of the Claimants in equal proportion
by keeping 50% of the share fall due to each Claimant in fixed
deposits in any nationalized bank for a period of five years.
13. The copies of documents as produced by
Ms.Mohapatra in course of hearing are kept on record.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
S.Das
