Orissa High Court
Muthe Herna & Ors vs Union Of India on 10 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.661 of 2020
Muthe Herna & Ors. .... Appellant
Ms.D.Mahapatra, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India .... Respondent
Mr. A.Routray, Senior Panel Counsel
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
10.05.2023
Order No.
03. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode
2. Heard Ms.D.Mahapatra, learned counsel for the claimant-
Appellant and Mr. Routray, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the
Respondent- Union of India.
3. Present appeal by the claimants is directed against impugned
judgment dated 4th November, 2019 passed by the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A.(IIU) 92 of 2016,
wherein learned Tribunal has refused to grant any compensation in
favour of the claimants by disbelieving their case.
4. The admitted facts are that the dead body of the deceased was
recovered beside the railway track at KM No.210/10 on 5th March,
2009 at 11.A.M. being noticed by the driver of the UP DTM-6. The
dead body of the deceased was cut into two pieces as the head was
separated from the trunk and the skull was smeared with grease.
Titlagarh GRPS UD Case No. 03 of 2009 was registered and the
inquiry report was submitted by police stating the death is due to run
over by running train.
5. The case of the Claimants is that the deceased while travelling
in Kesinga-Raipur passenger train on 5th March, 2009 fell down due to
sudden jerk in between Kesinga and Titlagarh railway station. The
Claimants examined two witnesses along whom A.W.2 has stated to
have seen the deceased boarding the train along with two other co-
villagers at Kesinga by purchasing a general ticket. A general ticket
bearing No.Z 52122178 was seized in course of police investigation.
6. The railways examined one witness who is the Deputy Station
Superintendent of Kesinga Railway Station. The Tribunal disbelieved
the case of the Claimants based on the opinion recorded in the post-
mortem examination report. According to learned Tribunal, since the
cause of death is due to run over where the head was separated from
the trunk, the same cannot be a case of accidental fall from the
running train. The Tribunal has further added, in support of its
conclusion, that the house of the deceased is only 1.5 km away from
the spot of accident.
7. It is true that the post-mortem examination doctor has opined to
the effect that the nature of injuries found on the dead body is
consistent with the case of run over by running train. But the same
does not rule out the case of accidental fall. So it cannot be concluded,
as held by the Tribunal, that such injuries are impossible in case of fall
from running train. The post-mortem examination doctor has not
excluded such possibility.
8. In the present case, the seizure of ticket by the police is not
disputed. A.W.2 has stated in his evidence that he saw the deceased
boarded in the train after purchasing the journey ticket. This part of
evidence of A.W.2 has not been rebutted by the Railways nor R.W.1 -
the Deputy Station Superintendent has said anything in contrast to
said evidence of A.W.2. The circumstances that the deceased was
seen boarded in the train and his dead body was found from the
railway track not inconsistent with the passing time of Kesinga-Raipur
passenger at the spot, and the finding arrived by the police in their
inquiry report cannot be discarded or brushed aside by the mere fact
that the deceased was a resident of a village 1.5km away from the spot
of accident. Further, the observation of the Tribunal that a person
falling from a running train would likely to suffer head injuries or
abrasions but cannot be cut into two pieces from the trunk, is without
any basis. Therefore, the circumstances as brought on record by the
Claimants cumulatively establish their case regarding fall of the
deceased from the running train i.e. Kesinga-Raipur passenger train.
The journey of the deceased as a bona fide passenger in the said train
is established from seizure of the journey ticket.
9. The contention raised by Mr.Routray, learned Senior Panel
Counsel that the records could not be made available for verification
since the claim application was filed after lapse of six years, cannot be
permitted to stand on the way to satisfy the claim of the Applicants
because the delay in filing the claim application has been condoned by
the Tribunal.
10. In view of the discussions made above, the appeal is allowed
and the Claimants being the wife and son of the deceased are found
entitled for compensation as per scheduled amount. The Respondent-
Union of India is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-
along with interest @6% per annum form the date of accident or
Rs.8,00,000/-, whichever is higher, in terms of the principles decided
in the case of Union of India -vs- Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572,
within a period of four months from today, which shall be disbursed
in favour of the Claimants-Appellants in equal proportion by keeping
50% of the shares fall due to each of the Claimants in fixed deposits
in any nationalized bank separately for a period of 6 years.
11. The copies of evidences and exhibits as produced by Ms.
Mahapatra 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
S.Das
Digitally signed by SANGRAM
SANGRAM DAS DAS
Date: 2023.05.11 19:06:06
+05'30'
