Orissa High Court
Balika Prasad vs Union Of India on 25 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.1046 of 2019
Balika Prasad .... Appellant
Ms.D.Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent
Mr.S.Patra, C.G.C.
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
25.1.2023
Order No.
3. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Ms.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the
Appellant and Ms.Patra, learned Central Government Counsel for
the Respondent-Union of India.
3. Present appeal by the claimant is directed against the
impugned judgment dated 31st October, 2019 passed by the learned
Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, in Case
No.OA/IIU/229/2015, wherein the Tribunal has refused to grant any
compensation on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide
passenger of the train and he died due to his own negligence.
4. The claimant is the mother of the deceased, namely,
Sandeep Prasad @Sandeep Kumar Prasad. The case of the claimant
is that the deceased was travelling in Koraput Intercity Express train
No.18107 Up on 27th May, 2015 with valid journey ticket and he
fall down from the running train in between Rajgangpur and
Sonakhan Railway Station. In this regard, Rajgangpur P.S. U.D.
Case No.13/15 dated 28th May, 2015 was registered, inquest was
held and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination.
5. Two witnesses Viz. A.W.1 and A.W.2 were examined
from the side of the claimant, besides the police papers filed in
support of their contention. On the other hand, one witness Viz,
R.W.1 was examined by the Railways, who was a RPF personnel,
besides the statutory inquiry report of the DRM.
6. A.W.2, namely, Pintu Yadav was an eyewitness to the
occurrence, who has stated in his evidence that, he along with five
other friends including the deceased boarded Koraput Intercity
Express after purchasing valid journey tickets from Rourkela to
Sundargarh. He produced two journey tickets bearing No.L-
65528354 and L-65528357 in respect four persons and two persons
respectively. According to A.W.2, he saw the deceased falling from
the running train at that relevant spot while travelling together in the
same train.
7. R.W.1, the witness examined from the side of the
Railways is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. He is the RPF
personnel, who conducted an inquiry upon receipt of information of
death of the deceased. But the Tribunal by dragging the statements
mentioned in the DRM report came to the finding that the deceased
was travelling on the foot-board of the train carelessly and fell due
to his own negligence. The Tribunal further disbelieved the ticket
produced by A.W.2 for the deceased on the ground that the same is
a planted one. Both such reasons stated by the Tribunal are found
erroneous, since it is the consistent evidence of the eyewitness
(A.W.2) that the deceased was travelling in the train with valid
journey ticket and fell down due to heavy rush inside the
compartment. It is not found appropriate on the part of the Tribunal
to disbelieve this evidence of the eyewitness in absence of any
contrary material brought by the railways on record. The reliance of
the Tribunal to DRM's report with regard to previous statement of
said A.W.2 is not a valid ground under the rules of evidence, since
such previous statement allegedly made by the A.W.2 before the
Inquiry Officer has neither been contradicted nor substantiated with
required examination of the inquiring officer. Further, the doubt
raised by the Tribunal regarding plantation of the journey ticket
bearing No.L-65528357 is without basis in absence of any reasons
assigned for that. It is to be mentioned here that, when the ticket
itself speaks that the same has been issued in respect of two adults,
the same has to be accepted as such unless and until the persons
travelled thereby are named specifically. When the witness
produces the ticket to contend that it was in respect of two adults
including the deceased, no reason is made out to disbelieve the same
in respect of the deceased.
8. In view of the discussions made above and the
circumstances brought on record as well as the evidence of A.W.2,
the death of the deceased is established to be in an untoward
incident while he was travelling in Koraput Intercity Express.
Further, the claimant being undisputedly the mother of the deceased
is entitled for compensation as per the schedule amount.
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, within
a period of four months from today, which shall be disbursed in
favour of the claimant by keeping 50% of the amount in fixed deposits
for a period of five years in any Nationalized bank.
10. The copies of depositions as produced by Ms.Mohapatra in
course of hearing are kept on record.
11. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
C.R.Biswal
