Farida Khatun & Ors vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 5861 Ori

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                    FAO No.1047 of 2019

            Farida Khatun & Ors.                        ....        Appellants
                                                  Ms. D. Mohapatra, Advocate

                                          -versus-

            Union of India                              ....      Respondent
                                                        Mr. M.Pradhan, CGC

                          CORAM:
                          JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
                                        ORDER

12.05.2023 Order No.

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

2. Heard Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Pradhan, learned CGC for the Respondent

3. Present appeal by the Claimant is directed against judgment dated 15th October, 2019 of learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A.(IIU)/174/2015, wherein the Tribunal has refused to grant any compensation by disbelieving the case of Claimants.

4. As per Claimants, the deceased was traveling from Bhupdeopur to Rourkela in Bilashpur-Tata passenger train No.58114. At Rourkela station, due to sudden jerk in train, he fell down from the train on 26th May, 2015. The journey ticket bearing No.G13937408 dated 25th May, 2015 from Bhupdeopur to Rourkela was recovered from possession of dead body of the deceased.

5. The Claimants have examined one witness viz. A.W.1, who is the widow of deceased. The railways did not examine any witness nor adduce any evidence except the statutory report of the DRM.

6. The Tribunal disbelieved the case of Claimants on the ground that the dead body of the deceased was found lying at platform No.2 though BSP-Tata passenger train halted at platform No.4. The Tribunal further added that, since the head was severed from the trunk, the death of the deceased is unrelated to any untoward incident and this might be a case of suicide or run over.

7. The admitted facts remain that the dead body of the deceased was first noticed at 3.50hrs on 26th May, 2015 by the on-duty RPF personnel at platform No.2 on line No.2. As mentioned in the DRM report, no train did pass through platform No.2 during 3.15hrs to 3.50hrs on 26th May 2015. BSP-Tata passenger train arrived at platform No.4 at 3.15hrs and departed at 3.55hrs. So, the Tribunal doubted fall of deceased from BSP- Tata train at platform No.2.

8. Here, according to railways BSP-Tata down passenger train arrived at platform No.4 at 3.15hrs and left at 3.55hrs. It is mentioned in the DRM report that as per record no train passed through platform No.2 in between 3.15hrs to 3.50hrs. If that would be so and the recovery of dead body of the deceased at platform No.2 remains undisputed, then the case of suicide or run over of the deceased as concluded by the Tribunal is not found correct. Because if no train passed in between 3.15hrs to 3.50hrs

through platform No.2 then run over of the deceased at platform No.2 just prior to 3.50hrs is also impossible. So the only possibility remains that the deceased while getting down from BSP-Tata train or after arrival of the said train at Rourkela station had faced some untoward incident causing his death. Because travelling of the deceased in Tata-BSP train is confirmed on verification of ticket from Bhupdeopur to Rourkela, as mentioned in the DRM report. It is not that the Claimants have produced the ticket from their possession, but undisputedly the ticket was recovered from possession of the dead body at the time of inquest. Therefore, left without any other option, it is concluded that the death of deceased is relating to an untoward incident on 26th May, 2015 at Rourkela Station while travelling in BSP-Tata passenger train. This Court accordingly holds that the deceased died while travelling in BSP-Tata passenger train concerning an untoward incident.

9. The Claimants being the wife and two children of the deceased are thus found entitled for compensation amount as per scheduled amount.

10. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the Respondent-Union of India to deposit the compensation amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of accident or Rs.8,00,000 whichever is higher, 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 share fall due to each of the Claimant in fixed deposits separately in any nationalized bank for a period of 6 years.

11. Copies of DRM report and other documents as produced by Ms. Mohapatra in course of hearing are kept on record.

12. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

( B.P. Routray) Judge S.Das

Digitally signed by SANGRAM

SANGRAM DAS DAS Date: 2023.05.12 15:00:49 +05'30'