Orissa High Court
Sapana [email protected] Ranjan Sahu vs Union Of India on 5 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.309 of 2022
Sapana [email protected] Ranjan Sahu .... Appellants
and others
Mr. B.N. Tripathy, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent
Ms. S. Patra, C.G.C. for Union of India
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
05.01.2023
Order No.
02. 1. Heard Mr. B.N. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Appellants-
claimants and Ms. S. Patra, learned C.G.C. for Union of India-
Respondent.
2. Present appeal by the claimants is directed against the
judgment dated 27.06.2022 passed in OA(IIU)/249/2018 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. According to the claimants, the deceased, namely, Ranjan
[email protected] Udaya Sahu while travelling in Janashatabdi
Express Train No.12051 from Ghatkopar to Ambarnath fell down
from the running train at Ghatkopar Railway Station and died.
4. The Railways on the contrary plead that the deceased died
while trespassing the railway track and dashed by the running
Janashatabdi Express at KM No.19/4-5 at 05.45 hours on
22.02.2015 and the said fact was reported by the loco pilot to the
Station Manager, Ghatkopar Railway Station.
5. One witness, i.e. A.W.1, who is the widow of the deceased,
was examined from the side of the claimants. Besides, the copies
of the Police papers including post mortem examination report
were produced in evidence from the side of the claimants. The
Railways examined one witness, Viz. R.W.1-Akhilesh
Rajpurohit, the RPF personnel. The copies of inquest report,
dead-body challan, post-mortem examination report and death
certificate were produced from the side of the Railways.
6. The learned Tribunal by relying on the contention of the
Railways based on the statement of the loco pilot held that the
deceased was not a bonafide passenger and died while trespassing
the railway track.
7. Admittedly, a journey ticket of general class from Ghatkopar to
Ambarnath was recovered from possession of the dead-body of
the deceased during inquest. The claimants are the wife and
children of the deceased, who stayed at Kabisuryanagar in the
district of Ganjam. The evidence adduced by A.W.1, though she
was not an eye-witness of the accident, was supported by the
contentions made in the Police records, as produced in course of
evidence. According to the post-mortem report, the nature of
injury is head injury associated with other injuries. Therefore,
from the oral evidence of A.W.1 coupled with those Police papers
adduced from the side of the claimants, the case of the applicants
that the deceased died in a railway accident is found supported.
8. Now the question is whether the deceased died while
trespassing the railway track or by fall from the running train
accidentally ?
9. The Railways did not examine the loco pilot, who allegedly
saw one person crossing the railway track while the train was
coming. The report of the loco pilot has not been adduced in
evidence by the Railways. Nothing is seen on record about
production of DRM's enquiry report in evidence before the
learned Tribunal. The only witness examined by the Railways is a
RPF personnel, who has not seen the occurrence nor has any
direct knowledge about the occurrence.
10. When the journey ticket was found from the possession of the
deceased and the dead-body is found near the railway track and
the injury sustained by him are found consistent with the story of
falling down from the running train, the preponderance of
probability is in favour of the contention of the claimants and the
reliance placed by the learned Tribunal on the statement of loco
pilot, namely, Rajib Lochan, who has never come to the witness
box nor his report has been produced on record, is found
unjustified.
11. Thus keeping in view the circumstances and the evidence
adduced from the side of the claimants, it is held that the
contention of the claimants regarding death of the deceased in the
untoward incident while he was travelling in Janashatabdi
Express is established. Accordingly, the claimants are found
entitled for compensation amount as fixed in the schedule due to
death of the deceased, namely, Ranjan [email protected] Udaya
Sahu.
12. In the result, the Respondent-Union of India is directed to pay
compensation of Rs.8,00,00/- (rupees eight lakhs) along with
interest @6% per annum from the date of accident, i.e. 22.2.2015
within a period of four months from today. The compensation
amount shall be disbursed among the claimants-Appellants as per
the direction of the learned Tribunal.
13. The appeal is allowed.
14. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
