Orissa High Court
R. Lachimi And Another vs Union Of India on 6 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.253 of 2020
R. Lachimi and Another .... Appellants
Ms. Deepali Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent
Mr. D.Gochhayat, CGC
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
6.1.2023
Order No.
03. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Ms.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Appellant and
Mr.Gochhayat, learned Central Government Counsel for the
Respondent.
3. Present appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment
dated 14th October, 2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A.No.160 of 2015, wherein
the Tribunal has refused to grant any compensation by disbelieving
the death of the deceased, namely, R.Chennya in an untoward
incident.
4. The claimants are the wife and daughter of the deceased and
their case is that on 27th May, 2015 while the deceased was travelling
from Bhadrak to Balasore in Khargapur Passenger Train accidentally
fell down from the running train and died on the spot. According to
the claimants, the journey ticket was lost.
4. Two witnesses were examined from the side of the claimants
Viz. A.W.1 - R. Reyamma, daughter of the deceased and A.W.2 - R.
Krishna, an independent eye-witness. No witness was examined from
the side of the Railways. Only DRM's report was filed on behalf of
the Railways.
5. The undisputed facts remain that, the dead body of the deceased
was found on the railway track near Platform No.4 of Bhadrak Station
at KM No.293/10. The neck was completely crushed and head was
separated from the body. According to the Post Mortem Report, the
cause of injuries leading to death is either due to dashing against
running train or run over by the train.
6. The Tribunal disbelieved the case of the claimants mainly on
the ground that, the evidence of A.W.2 is not believed for the reason
that he has not explained as to why he visited the Railway Station and
he has not stated so in the police enquiry nor informed to the Railway
authorities after the incident. The said reasons as stated by the
Tribunal to disbelieve the eye-witness in absence of any contrary
evidence produced from the side of the Railways is found unjustified.
It is for the reason that the evidence so adduced by the A.W. 2 as an
eye-witness to the accident is not rebutted by contrast materials.
Therefore, what is stated by the said A.W.2 in his examination-in-
chief about witnessing the incident and the story of death of the
deceased cannot be discarded.
7. Next coming to the ground of absence of journey ticket,
according to the claimants, the same was lost in course of happenings.
No material evidence against the same has been produced by the
Railways. As the law is settled, absence of journey ticket from the
possession of the deceased would not itself disprove the case of
claimants regarding bona fideness of the deceased as a passenger.
8. So, on overall assessment of the circumstances and the
materials produced on record, the case of the claimants can be said to
have established as a case of bona-fide passenger died in an untoward
incident. Thus, the claimants, being the widow and daughter of the
deceased, are found entitled to compensation for the death of the
deceased in the untoward incident.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the Respondent-Union
of India is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Four
lakhs) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of accident
or Rs.8,00,000/- (eight lakhs), whichever is the higher amount in
terms of the decision rendered in the case of Union of India vs- Rina
Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, within a period of four months from today,
where-after the same shall be disbursed in favour of both the
claimants by keeping 50% of their shares in fixed deposits separately
in their names respectively in any Nationalized bank for a period of
five years.
10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
C.R.Biswal
