Orissa High Court
Debananda Hessa @ Budhiram Hessa vs Union Of India on 2 April, 2024
Author: B. P. Routray
Bench: B. P. Routray
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.240 of 2022
Debananda Hessa @ Budhiram Hessa .... Appellant
Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India, represented through
General Manager, East Coast Railway,
Bhubaneswar .... Respondent
Mr. A. Routray, Sr. Panel Counsel
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
2.4.2024
Order No.
01. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Ms. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for claimant -
Appellant and Mr. A. Routray, learned senior panel counsel.
3. Present appeal by the claimant is directed against impugned
judgment dated 25th April, 2022 of learned Member (Technical),
Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar passed
in OA No.(IIU)/174 of 2018, wherein the tribunal has refused to grant
any compensation in favour of the claimant.
4. The case of the claimant is that, while he was travelling in
Bhubaneswar - Keonjhar Passenger train on 24th October, 2016 after
purchasing a valid journey ticket, accidentally fell down in between
Sukinda and Tomka railway station and sustained injuries in his legs.
In course of the treatment his legs were amputated.
5. The railways denied the claim and contested it by stating that
the injured trespassed the railway track to receive such injuries and he
was never a passenger of any train. According to the railways, the
injured while speaking in mobile phone with ear-phones plugged in
the ear walked on the railway track resulting the accident.
6. The claimant examined himself as A.W.1 and railways
examined one RPF personnel as R.W.1. The claimant relied on his
treatment papers and the railways produced the statutory report of the
DRM.
7. It is true that no one except the injured has stated regarding
journey of the injured - claimant in the train in question at the time of
accident. No journey ticket was produced by the injured-claimant. It is
not that any other person has seen him travelling in the train. It is not
known who brought the injured to the local hospital and no police
case has been registered relating the incident. Neither local GRP has
registered any case relating the incident nor the matter was reported
by the treating doctor to local police. As per the treatment papers, the
injured was first taken to Danagadi local hospital and then shifted to
SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. It is mentioned in the
treatment papers that the injuries are due to railway traffic accident.
8. According to the DRM's report, the injured trespassed the
railway track while talking in the mobile phone with ear-phone
plugged in the ear. The statutory report of the DRM has its evidentiary
value in terms of Section 191 of the Railways Act.
9. As stated above, no one has corroborated the evidence of the
injured - claimant regarding his journey in the train, nor any
corroborative material could be produced by the claimant to support
his case regarding journey in the train in question. He has not stated
about the details of his journey and moreover, the claimant is a
resident of Dhabahali in the district of Jajpur. So in absence of
substantive material produced by the injured and considering the
preponderating value of the evidences brought on record, it is
concluded that the claimant has failed to establish his bona fide
journey in the train at the time of incident. Accordingly this Court
agrees with the finding of learned tribunal and the appeal is dismissed.
10. The copies of documents and evidences, as produced by Ms.
Mohapatra in course of hearing, are kept on record.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K.Panda
Designation: Personal Assistant
