Patna High Court
Union Of India Through The General ... vs Smt. Lajya Devi And Ors on 13 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.83 of 2017
======================================================
Union Of India Through The General Manager, North East Frontier Railway,
Maligaon, Guwahai
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Smt. Lajya Devi Wife of Nand Lal Mandal
2. Jaymanti Kumari, Daughter of Late Mandal
3. Satish Kumar , Son of Late Nand Lal Mandal All resident of Village-Pakri,
Police Station-Palasi, District-Araria Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Anil Singh,Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Alok Kumar Jha,Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-12-2022
Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, learned counsel
for the Railways.
2. The present appeal is directed against the
order dated 18.11.2016 passed by the Railways Claim Tribunal,
Patna Bench, Patna in OA 00185 of 2013 by which the Railways
were directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the
dependents of the deceased with 9% interest within a period of
two months failing which additional 3% is paid by them.
Patna High Court MA No.83 of 2017 dt.13-12-2022
3. The matrix of the fact giving rise to the
present appeal is/are as follows:-
4. The husband of the appellant while
traveling from Thakurganj to Kishanganj due to rush in the train
fell down and sustained serious injuries which led to his death.
5. The wife, Lajya Devi thereafter move the
Tribunal in OA No. 00185 of 2013 for compensation with
interest.
6. The Railways appeared and filed reply
stating that:
(i) the deceased was not a valid
passenger;
(ii) as such, it does not come within
Section 123(C) of the Railways Act,
1989 (henceforth for short 'the Act');
(iii) no dependents certificate was
filed;
(iv) death related report was also
not filed and;
(v) no such occurrence took place.
7. The Tribunal framed issues:-
(i) whether he was a valid
passenger?;
(ii) whether the claim is hit by
under Section 123(C) of the Act?;
(iii) whether the applicants are
Patna High Court MA No.83 of 2017 dt.13-12-2022
dependents of the deceased and;
(iv) whether they are entitled for
the compensation?.
8. Thereafter, 'the Tribunal' came to a finding
that the lady had claimed that her husband was a bona fide
passenger after purchasing a valid ticket, he was travelling
which may have lost due to accident and in that backdrop, the
onus was on the Railways to prove that he was not a bona fide
passenger. 'The Tribunal' further held that in such accident
where the injuries led to his death, it is common that the ticket
could not be found.
9. 'The Tribunal' as such, held that the
Railways have failed to prove that the deceased was not a bona
fide passenger and accordingly allowed the O.A. No. 00185 of
2013 on 18.11.2016 with the direction to pay the compensation
amount as recorded above.
10. Aggrieved, the present appeal was filed.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the claim of the appellant is that her husband was travelling
from Thakurganj to Kishanganj and in course whereof, he fell
down between Kishanganj and Hatwar. However, as Hatwar
Station comes after Kishanganj, it is clear that he was not
Patna High Court MA No.83 of 2017 dt.13-12-2022
having valid ticket at the time of accident and thus not a bona
fide passenger and as such, 'the learned Tribunal' failed to look
into this matter and erred in allowing the Claim Case No. O.A.
No. 00185/2013.
12. In the considered view of this Court, the
statement of the lady that he fell down between Kishanganj and
Hatwar does not prove that the person was not having a valid
ticket, the fact remains that there was rush in the train and due to
the same and jerk, the accident occurred and it can be safely
assumed that while he was trying to deboard the train at
Kishanganj, it started moving and due to the excessive crowd,
he fell down and accordingly sustained injuries which led to his
death. Further the lady was not accompanying her husband and
as such the said statement cannot be made basis for interfering
with the just and proper order passed by 'the Tribunal'.
13. This statement of the lady in no way
prove that her husband was not having a valid ticket and as
such, 'the learned Tribunal' was completely justified in deciding
the case against the Railways with the direction to pay the
compensation amount.
14. In the aforesaid background, this Court do
not find any error in order dated 18.11.2016 passed by the
Patna High Court MA No.83 of 2017 dt.13-12-2022
Tribunal in Claim Case OA No. 00185 of 2013.
15. The M.A. No. 83 of 2017 fails and is
accordingly, dismissed.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Jagdish/Neha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 15.12.2022
Transmission Date NA
