Orissa High Court
Veeti Wara Raju And Another vs Union Of India on 10 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.489 of 2022
Veeti Wara Raju and another .... Appellants
Mr. D.C. Dey, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent
Mr. G. Mohanty, C.G.C. for Union of India
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
10.01.2023
Order No.
01. 1. Heard Mr. D.C. Dey, learned counsel for the Appellants and
Mr. G. Mohanty, learned C.G.C. for the Respondent-Union of
India.
2. Present appeal is directed against the judgment dated
20.10.2022 passed in Case No.OA(IIU)/38/2020 by the Railway
Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar, wherein the
learned Tribunal has refused to grant any compensation by
disbelieving the case of the claimants.
3. The admitted facts of the case are that the dead-body of the
deceased was recovered from the Railway Bridge No.259 at KM
No.110/06-09 on 6.10.2019 in between Rouli-Liliguma sections
under Kashipur in the district of Rayagada. The dead-body was
found in a full of blood and the blood was spread in the bridge at
that relevant place. The GRPS registered U.D. P.S. Case
No.20/2019, inquest was held and post-mortem was done. As per
post-mortem report, the cause of death is sudden due to
neurogenic and hemorrhage shock.
4. The case of the claimants is that their deceased son, namely,
Veeti Simon Raju went from Koraput to Bhubaneswar to attend
an interview of a security job and returned from Bhubaneswar on
4.10.2019 in Hirakhand Express after purchasing a second class
journey ticket. While he was coming in Hirakhand Express died
due to accidental fall from the running train and the Journey
Ticket bearing No.UYB-19223459, dated 4.10.2019 from
Bhubaneswar to Jeypore was recovered from possession of the
dead-body of the deceased.
5. Two witnesses, Viz.A.W.1, Claimant No.1 and A.W.2, an
independent co-passenger were examined from the side of the
claimants in addition to the documents like, FIR, inquest report,
post-mortem report, journey ticket, etc. One witness, Viz.R.W.1,
who is the RPF personnel of Laxmipur Post, was examined from
the side of the Railways including the documents like DRM's
investigation report and the same Police papers relied by the
claimants.
6. The learned Tribunal disbelieved the case of the claimants
mainly on the ground that they have mentioned in the claim
application about Hirakud Express and further A.W.2 has not
seen falling of the deceased from the train and that there is every
possibility regarding death of the deceased within any exception
provided under sub-section (a) to (e) of Section 124-A of the
Railways Act.
7. It is seen that the claimants have applied for amendment of the
contention in the claim application to change Hirakud Express as
Hirakhand Express. But this prayer for amendment was rejected
by the learned Tribunal. It is true that no further challenge was
led in the higher forum against such rejection of the prayer for
amendment. But it is also remain intact that the claimants, who
are the parents of the deceased, are poor illiterate people residing
in a remote area in the district of Malkangiri. There is no dispute
with regard to the journey ticket seized in course of investigation
that the same is not for Hirakhand Express. The learned Tribunal
has disbelieved recovery of said journey ticket from possession of
the deceased on the ground that it was not mentioned in the
inquest report. The undisputed fact remains that the journey ticket
was seized in course of Police investigation and according to the
investigation report as well as the seizure list, the same was
recovered from possession of the dead-body. The learned
Tribunal has doubted such recovery of the journey ticket by the
Police which is not mentioned in the inquest report. It needs to be
mentioned here that the inquest report though specifies in Column
No.8 to speak such other materials recovered from or near the
dead-body, but non-mentioning of the journey ticket in the
inquest report does not take away the effect of its seizure to be
unbelievable absolutely. In other words, if some article is not
enlisted in Column No.8 of the inquest report, it does not mean
that the same was never recovered from or near the dead-body or
there is any manipulation made by the Police, less other
circumstances appear to the contrary. Therefore, doubt raised by
the learned Tribunal regarding seizure of the journey ticket from
possession of the deceased is seen unfounded. When the
investigation report submitted by the Police is not disputed or
doubted, no reason is there to disbelieve the contention of the
Police mentioned in the seizure list regarding recovery of the
journey ticket from possession of the deceased.
8. The learned Tribunal has observed that the death of the
deceased could have been due to any of the exceptions mentioned
in sub-section (a) to (e) of Section 124-A of the Railways Act is
unfounded. It is for the reason that the exceptions are not general
presumptions. To bring anything under the exceptions definite
evidence has to be produced or definite material must be brought
on record.
In the case at hand, when the circumstances regarding
finding of the dead-body is from the railway bridge and the cause
of death is mentioned to be such and sudden due to neurogenic
and hemorrhage shock and the nature of external injuries are of
fracture on various parts of the body including rib and clavicle,
the same are found consistent with the story falling down from
running train. The journey ticket when is not doubted to be not
the Hirakud Express, no point is seen to disbelieve the case of the
claimants. The doubts so raised by the learned Tribunal to
disbelieve the case of the claimants are thus found unreasonable
and without any foundation.
9. Accordingly, the impugned award is set aside and the claimants
being the parents of the deceased are found entitled for
compensation as the death of the deceased is established to be an
untoward incident.
10. Resultantly, the Respondent-Union of India is directed to pay
compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (rupees eight lakhs) as per the
schedule in favour of the claimants by depositing the same before
the learned Tribunal 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 on such terms and
proportions to be decided by the learned Tribunal.
11. The copies of the depositions of the witnesses and the
documents filed by Mr. D.C. Dey, learned counsel for the
Appellants 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
