Orissa High Court
Bhaskar Chandra Mishra vs Union Of India on 4 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.122 of 2015
Bhaskar Chandra Mishra .... Appellant
Ms. D. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent
Mr. A.K. Mohanty, C.G.C. for Union of India
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
04.01.2023
Order No.
04. 1. Heard Ms. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Appellant-
claimant and Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned C.G.C. for Union of
India- Respondent.
2. Present appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment
dated 21.08.2014 passed in OA/IIU/2008/0224 by the Railway
Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar, wherein
learned Tribunal has refused to grant any compensation for the
alleged injuries sustained in the untoward incident by the
claimant.
3. The case of the claimant is that, on 5.5.2008 while the claimant
was trying to entrain Puri-Santragachhi-202Down Train from
Markona to Balasore, he accidentally fell down due to rush and
push of the co-passengers of the train and sustained multiple
injuries. The claimant sustained fracture injury on his left leg and
right hand elbow.
4. The claimant examined himself as A.W.1 and adduced the
medical documents as well as Disability Certificate under Ext.A/1
to A/8.
5. The Respondent-Railways denied the claim of the applicant
and their case is that, the claimant was injured while he was
passing the Railway track in the opposite direction of Markona
Railway Station, i.e. between Markona and Ranital after Puri-
Santragachhi Express left Markona Railway Station. In support
their case, the Railways examined one witness, Viz. R.W.1 and
filed the DRM's report as well as Guard journal.
6. The learned Tribunal upon analysis of the evidence relied on
the Guard journal (Ext.R/1) to come to the finding that the
claimant did not sustain any injury in the untoward incident as
claimed by him and resultantly rejected his claim application.
7. Upon hearing both the parties and after perusal of the
impugned award, it reveals that according to the learned Tribunal,
the injuries sustained by the claimant are proved to have inflicted
in course of and due to railway accident. But the same was not
established to be in any untoward incident due to any negligence
on the part of the Railways and further, the claimant was not a
bonafide passenger of the train in question.
8. The claimant had adduced the Journey Ticket No.26025, dated
5.8.2008 from Markona to Balasore. It is not in dispute that Puri-
Santragachhi Express left Markona station at 17.35hrs on
5.8.2008. The question with regard to the place of accident and
time has been relied on by the learned Tribunal from the entry
made in Guard's journal under Ext.R/1. On the other hand, the
claimant by adducing himself as A.W.1 has stated in detail
regarding sustenance of the injury by him while entraining in
Puri-Santragachhi Express at Markona station. No oral evidence
has been adduced to contradict the statement of A.W.1, the
injured-claimant, with regard to place and timing of the accident.
R.W.1 is not an eye-witness to the accident, as claimed by the
injured. On the other hand, his evidence is to the effect of passing
of Puri-Santragachhi Express at Markona Railway Station on that
date. It is true that a certain presumption is attached to Ext.R/1
being the Guard's journal wherein entries have been made in
official course of business. But that being the presumption only
cannot outweigh the oral evidence of the direct eye-witness. So
any entry made therein cannot prevail over the direct evidence of
A.W.1 made in the witness box. Moreover, the evidence of
A.W.1 is supported with circumstances like production of journey
ticket and sustenance of injury consistent with railway accident.
Therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal which is based
mostly on the report of the DRM which is again based on Ext.R/1
is unsustainable and set aside.
9. Keeping in view the nature of injuries, which are fracture of
left leg and right hand elbow associated with 75% disability, the
injured-applicant is found entitled for compensation of
Rs.80,000/- (rupees eighty thousand) as per Schedule Injury and
Non-Schedule Injury prescribed in Railway Accidents and
Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 along with
interest @6% per annum from the date of accident, i.e. 5.8.2008.
10. With the aforesaid observation and directions, the appeal is
disposed of.
11. The copy of depositions of A.W.1 and R.W.1 as produced by
Ms. Mohapatra in course of hearing are kept on record.
12. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
