Ashesh Mukhi vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 4924 Ori

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                   FAO No.208 of 2020
            Ashesh Mukhi                                 ....         Appellant
                                                        Mr. D. Mund, Advocate
                                           -versus-
            Union of India                            ....        Respondent
                                   Mr. A. Pradhan, C.G.C. for Union of India

                          CORAM:
                          JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

                                         ORDER

02.05.2023 Order No.

03. 1. Heard Mr. D. Mund, learned counsel for the Appellant-

claimant and Mr. A. Pradhan, learned C.G.C. for Union of India- Respondent.

2. Present appeal by the claimant, who is the husband of the deceased namely Smt. Soni alias Sangita Mukhi, is directed against judgment dated 09.01.2020 of Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar, passed in Case No.OA- II(u)/2017/0013, wherein learned Tribunal has refused to grant any compensation on the ground that the death of the deceased is not arising out of any untoward incident.

3. The deceased was noticed lying unconscious between Seat No.32-35 of Coach No.SE028441 GS of Samaleswari Express by the co-passengers on 20.8.2016 and she was immediately shifted to the nearest hospital at Titilagarh. She was attended by the Doctor and declared dead.

4. The post-mortem examination was conducted upon Police requisition and as per opinion of the post-mortem Doctor, the deceased died due to bleeding diathesis (haematological disorder) from stomach due to stomach erosion and no external injury was noticed on the dead-body of the deceased.

5. No direct evidence has been produced by the claimant to substantiate his case that the deceased sustained any injury due to fall inside the train. According to the claimant, who is the husband, the deceased fell in the latrine of the train due to jerk. A.W.1 has no direct knowledge about fall of the deceased in the train nor did he examine any such witness who has direct knowledge of alleged fall. The opinion of the Doctor is clear to the extent that the bleeding is due to stomach erosion and no external injury on the person on the dead-body was found. As per post-mortem Doctor it is a haemotological disorder. This removes all such doubts regarding any injury due to accidental fall. Thus keeping in view the definition of untoward incident prescribed under Section 123 of the Railways Act, the case of the claimant and the death of the deceased cannot be put within the definition of "untoward incident" to entitle the claimant for compensation. Accordingly, no flaw is seen in the impugned award to interfere with.

6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

( B.P. Routray) Judge BASANTA B.K. BarikDigitally signed by BASANTA KUMAR KUMAR BARIK Date: 2023.05.03 BARIK 19:07:01 +05'30'