Orissa High Court
Gopal Podha vs Union Of India on 9 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.114 of 2020
Gopal Podha .... Appellant
Mr. Dhananjay Mund, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India, represented through its
General Manager, East Coast Railway,
Bhubaneswar .... Respondent
Ms. J. Sahoo, Central Government Counsel
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
9.1.2023
Order No.
03. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. D. Mund, learned counsel for the claimant -
Appellant and Ms. J. Sahoo, learned Central Government Counsel for
Respondent - Union of India.
3. Present appeal by the claimant is directed against impugned
judgment dated 9th January, 2020 of learned Members, Railway
Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar passed in OA-
II/286/2016, wherein the tribunal has refused to grant any
compensation disbelieving the case of the claimant.
4. According to claimant, his deceased son, namely Sankar Podha,
while traveling from Bargarh to Sambalpur in Rayagadha-Sambhalpur
Express on 19th September, 2016 accidentally fell down from the
running train and died.
5. The dead body of the deceased was recovered in lying within
the track at KM 591/6-7 between Atabira and Bargarh railway station
on 20th September, 2016 at 8.40 hours. It was noticed by the loco pilot
of a goods train. As per post mortem examination report, the deceased
sustained 8 external injuries over the face and other parts of the body
and the cause of death is due to neurogenic shock resulting from those
external injuries which are craniocerebral in nature.
6. The claimant examined two witnesses on his behalf, viz. A.W.1
and A.W.2 and Railways examined one witness, viz. R.W.1. A.W.1 is
the claimant himself and A.W.2 is a witness who has stated that he
saw the deceased purchasing the ticket and boarding the train. R.W.1
is the Sub-Inspector of RPF of the concerned post.
7. The tribunal disbelieved the case of the claimant mainly on the
ground that, A.W.2 cannot be treated as an eye witness due to long
difference of his age with the deceased and secondly, no journey
ticket could be found from possession of the deceased. It is also
observed by the tribunal that the house of the deceased being at the
distance of 4 km away from the place of occurrence, there may be
possibility of running over by train while crossing the track.
8. A perusal of evidence of A.W.2, as produced by Mr. Mund
does not create any room for inference in favour of the contention of
railways that he cannot be believed as a witness to have seen the
deceased boarding the train after purchasing ticket. When A.W.2
speaks specifically that they went to the station in bicycle and they are
neighbors, no point remains to disbelieve him only for the reason that
he is too elderly than the deceased.
9. So far as absence of journey ticket is concerned, it is the case of
the claimant that the same was lost. The fact remains that the claimant
came to know about death of his son from newspaper on 21st
September 2016, i.e. two days after the accident and therefore, there is
every possibility of missing the journey ticket. When the
circumstances like finding of dead body on the track and nature of
injuries sustained by him are consistent with the story of fall from the
running train, then non-recovery of journey ticket from possession of
the dead body is immaterial. Moreover, the law is well settled that
mere absence of journey ticket would not disprove the case of the
claimant that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.
10. In view of the discussions made above the impugned judgment
is set aside and the claimant being the father of the deceased is held
entitled for compensation.
11. Resultantly, 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 claimants along with interest @
6% per annum from the date of accident, or eight lakhs, whichever is
higher, within a period of four months from today. The entire
compensation amount shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant -
Appellants by keeping 50% of the same in fixed deposit in his name,
in any nationalized bank for a period of five years.
12. The copies of PM report and other documents along with
depositions of A.W.2 filed by Mr. Mund in course of hearing are kept
on record.
13. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K.Panda
