Gagan Pradhan And Another vs General Manager
2023 Latest Caselaw 546 Ori

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                   FAO No.57 of 2022


            Gagan Pradhan and another                    ....      Appellants
                                                      Ms.D.Mohapatra, Advocate

                                          -versus-


            General Manager,
            East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar
            and another                     ....      Respondents
                                             Mr.M.K.Pati, C.G.C.


                        CORAM:
                        JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
                                       ORDER

17.01.2023 Order No.

2. 1. The matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard Ms.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mr.Pati, learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent-Union of India.

3. Present appeal by the claimants is directed against the impugned judgment dated 31st January, 2022 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, in Case No.OA(IIU)/154/2018, wherein the Tribunal has refused to grant any compensation by disbelieving the case of the claimants.

4. The admitted facts of the case are that the deceased was a student and his dead body was found on the down railway track between Mancheswar-Baranga Railway Station on 6th January, 2018 in the evening hour. The GRPS accordingly registered U.D. Case No.3 of 2018 and inquest was held. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination and as per post mortem examination report, several contusions on the upper part of the body of the deceased including neck and clavicle aspect were found, which are the cause of the death. According to the claimants, who are parents of the deceased, he while travelling in Howrah-Puri Passenger train fell down accidentally from the running train and died.

5. The Tribunal disbelieved the case of the claimants on the ground that the ticket stated to have been found from the possession of the dead body during inquest is not believable, and therefore, the deceased is not a bona fide passenger of the train. One witness has been examined from the side of the claimants, who is the father of the deceased. One witness was also examined from the side of the railways Viz. R.W.1, a R.P.F. personnel. Besides respective oral evidences, both parties relied on the police papers like inquest report, post-mortem report, U.D. inquiry report etc.

6. As stated above, the admitted facts suggest such circumstances supporting the case of the claimants regarding fall of the deceased from a running train. The only dispute remains if he was a bona fide passenger of the train or not. According to the Tribunal, there were two inquest reports prepared by the GRPS, one dated 6th January, 2018 and another dated 7th January, 2018.

It is further observed by the Tribunal that, in the first inquest report, there is no mention of seizure of the journey ticket, but in the second inquest report, it is mentioned that the journey ticket was recovered from the possession of dead body. So the Tribunal opined that General Railway Police has manipulated the inquest report to plant the journey ticket. In this regard, it is seen from the record that there was no so-called first inquest report or second inquest report. But only one inquest report dated 7th January, 2018 revealing inquest of the dead body held at 8:00 AM is there. According to the DRM's inquiry report, the dead body was found for the first time at 17:30 hours on 6th January, 2018, which is almost evening hour and therefore, according to the police manual, the inquest has to be held on the next morning. Therefore, no flaw is seen in holding inquest in the next morning at 8:00 AM on 7th January, 2018 and the reasons stated by the Tribunal to disbelieve the inquest report dated 7th January, 2018 are found speculative without any reasonable basis.

7. Moreover, when the journey ticket has been mentioned in the inquest report to have recovered from possession of the dead body, which is dated 6th January, 2018 in Howrah-Puri passenger train and undisputedly the genuineness of said journey ticket remains unquestioned. Further, Puri-Howrah train passed between Mancheswar-Baranga Station during that relevant time on 6th January, 2018. So, no point remains there for the Tribunal to disbelieve the bona-fideness of the deceased as a genuine passenger of said train, particularly in absence of the contrary

evidence brought on record by the railways. Therefore the findings of the Tribunal are liable to be set aside.

8. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is set aside. The Respondent-Union of India is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Eight lakhs) along with interest @6% per annum from the date of accident 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.

9. Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application.

( B.P. Routray) Judge

C.R.Biswal