Union Of India Through The General ... vs Smt. Santosh Kanwar W/O Late Shri ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6550 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4698/2018

Union Of India Through The General Manager, North Western
Railway Jaipur (Raj)
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                   Versus
1.     Smt. Santosh Kanwar W/o Late Shri Pushpendra Singh
       Sisodiya, Aged About 30 Years, R/o G-1 Rajput Mohalla
       Village Kyardakala Tehsil Khandar District Sawaimadhopur
       (Raj)
2.     Kumari Kratika Sisodiya D/o Late Shri Pushpendra Singh
       Sisodiya, Aged About 5 Years, R/o G-1 Rajput Mohalla
       Village Kyardakala Tehsil Khandar District Sawaimadhopur
       (Raj)
3.     Kumari Ritika Sisodiya D/o Late Shri Pushpendra Singh
       Sisodiya, Aged About 3 Years, R/o G-1 Rajput Mohalla
       Village Kyardakala Tehsil Khandar District Sawaimadhopur
       (Raj)
4.     Master Vansh S/o Late Shri Pushpendra Singh Sisodiya,
       Aged About 1 Years, R/o G-1 Rajput Mohalla Village
       Kyardakala Tehsil Khandar District Sawaimadhopur (Raj)
5.     Smt. Aruna Devi W/o Late Shri Rajmohan Singh Sisodiya,
       Aged About 60 Years, Applicant No. 2 To 4 Being Minor
       Hence Through Their Natural Guardian And Mother Smt
       Santosh Kanwar Applicant No. 1 R/o G-1 Rajput Mohalla
       Village Kyardakala Tehsil Khandar District Sawaimadhopur
       (Raj)
                                                                ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. S N Meena
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Ajay Shukla

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

16/11/2021

(2 of 5) [CMA-4698/2018]

1. This appeal has been preferred against the order passed by

the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur awarding

compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with simple interest @9% in

favour of the claimants vide judgment dated 28.06.2018.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the

findings arrived at are perverse and the claims set up was artificial

and actually the tickets which have been produced would purely

reflect that the deceased could not have been having tickets for

travelling on 05.04.2013 and the tickets have been implanted later

on. It is submitted that the tickets were not valid and the

deceased was travelling, if at all on material date, was an

unauthorized passenger. Learned counsel submits that as per the

report of the DRM, who conducted the preliminary investigation

for grant of compensation, the deceased was having possession of

a ticket No.D-92032518 issued to him from Jaipur Railway Station

on 05.04.2013 another ticket has been issued from

Sawaimadhopur Railway Station dated 05.04.2013 purchased at

10:25 AM. Thus, it was not possible that the deceased could have

taken a ticket on 05.04.2013 from Sawaimadhopur at 10:25 AM

and reached Jaipur and then travelled from Jaipur to

Sawaimadhopur on the same date at 06:20 AM. Possession of the

two tickets therefore, cast a doubt on the claim of the

compensation for the deceased and it was not true that the

deceased actually died on account of an accident nor it can be said

that he was a bona fide passenger. In Punchnama prepared, there

is no mentioning of ticket found in the possession of the deceased.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants

submits that the claim is genuine. It is not denied that the

deceased was travelling by train and he fell down and was cut into

(3 of 5) [CMA-4698/2018]

two pieces and the post mortem report of the deceased was also

produced for the purpose. The body was recovered near the

railway track. Learned counsel submits that the possession of the

tickets with deceased duly purchased from Jaipur to

Sawaimadhopur and on the same day he has purchased ticket

from Sawaimadhopur to Jaipur at 10:25 AM.

4. The case of the claimant No.1 is that her husband had gone

to Jaipur from Sawaimadhopur to the office for sending the daak

and did not return back whereafter she was informed of him

having died on 06.04.2013. It has been stated that two tickets

were recovered from the body of the deceased, one ticket was of

Jaipur to Sawaimadhopur dated 05.04.2013 issued at 06.20 AM

and another ticket was from Sawaimadhopur to Jaipur dated

05.04.2013 issued at 10:25 AM.

5. Counsel for the railways submits that there is a doubt cast

on the factual aspect of the actual death of the deceased by train.

Statements which were recorded of the driver and guard of the

train travelling from Jaipur to Sawaimadhopur also reflect that no

accident took place. Learned counsel further submits that if the

deceased would have travelled from Sawaimadhopur to Jaipur at

10:25 AM train as stated by the claimant No.1-wife of the

deceased, it is not possible that he would have travelled back in

the morning on the same day and died on account of falling from

the train from Jaipur to Sawaimadhopur. The claim thus is a false

claim and the learned Tribunal ought not have accepted the claim.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants

submits that admittedly two tickets were found from the body of

the deceased one ticket was from Sawaimadhopur to Jaipur and

the another ticket is of the same date of morning from Jaipur to

(4 of 5) [CMA-4698/2018]

Sawaimadhopur. Learned counsel further submits that the

evidence has come on record that the deceased was going on duty

to Jaipur from Sawaimadhopur and after having left

Sawaimadhopur his whereabouts were not known and it is only

the next day it was known that he has died. His body was found

near the railway track and was cut into two pieces, the claimants

were informed about the death of the deceased and also

possession of the two tickets which has been mentioned by the

claimant-wife. It is not known as to how and from which train he

died but admittedly it was during the journey that he had died and

therefore, he is entitled to the claim.

7. I have considered the submissions and carefully looked into

the report.

8. A photocopy of the two tickets has been recovered along

with the report of the Executive Engineer, Ph.E.D. Sawaimadhopur

as is apparent from Panchnama. The two tickets were thus found

from the body of the deceased while there is no one to explain the

railway tickets with respect to the journey which has been

undertaken by the deceased.

9. Admittedly, a letter had been given to the concerned

deceased on 05.04.2013 by Executive Engineer, Jaipur addressed

for Sawaimadhopur as is apparent from the contents of the letter

attached to the report submitted under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the

Police. Thus, it is proved that the deceased did travel from

Sawaimadhopur to Jaipur on 05.04.2013 and then he was given a

letter (daak) which was to be given to the Executive Engineer at

Sawaimadhopur. He was thus travelling back from Jaipur to

Sawaimadhopur.

(5 of 5) [CMA-4698/2018]

10. The dead body has been recovered on 06.04.2013. It is

between 05.04.2013 and 06.04.2013 that he has died. Merely

because he also possesses the ticket from Jaipur to

Sawaimadhopur on 05.04.2013 morning, would not mean that he

did not travel from Jaipur to Sawaimadhopur by train in between

05.04.2013 and 06.04.2013. The subsequent ticket may not have

been recovered and may have been lost. It is also an admitted

position that the dead body has been found next to the track as

per the site plan and is cut into pieces which obviously can be only

on being run over by train.

11. In view thereof, fact of the deceased having died on account

of untoward accident occurred cannot be ruled out. The claim

petition therefore has been rightly entertained and the award

passed does not warrant any interference and the appeal is

accordingly dismissed.

12. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

SAURABH/31

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)