Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 490
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT NAGPUR BENCH
M.G. Giratkar, J.
Leelabai - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
First Appeal No. 328 of 2019
Decided On : 31-01-2020
A.B. Bambal, Advocate, N.P. Lambat, Advocate
The main legal point established is the burden of proof on the Railway to disprove the claim of a bona fide passenger and the relevance of circumstantial evidence in determining the status of the deceased.
Headnote:
Bona Fide Passenger - Railway Accident - Railways Act - Section 123(c), Section 124-A - The judgment discusses the contradiction between the inquest panchanama and joint investigation report to determine the deceased's status as a bona fide passenger. It highlights the burden of proof on the Railway to disprove the claim, the relevance of circumstantial evidence, and the legal principles established in Union of India vs. Rina Devi, Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others, and Union of India vs. Smt. Rani and others.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was traveling by train and fell down near a railway station, resulting in his death. The Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellants, stating that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased was a bona fide passenger based on the inquest panchanama and the presence of a railway ticket in his possession. It emphasized the Railway's burden to disprove the claim and the relevance of circumstantial evidence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, leading to the rejection of the claim by the Railway Claims Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the burden of proof lies on the Railway to disprove the claim, and the presence of a railway ticket and circumstantial evidence can establish the deceased's status as a bona fide passenger.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashed the Railway Claims Tribunal's judgment, and directed the Railway to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000 to the appellants.
JUDGMENT
M.G. Giratkar, J. - Heard Shri A.B. Bambal, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri N.P. Lambat, learned Counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal is against the judgment of Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Case No.OA(IIu)/NGP/2013/0194. Deceased Soma Ramchandra Naitam was travelling from Sirpur Kagajnagar to Wirur Railway Station on 24-2-2013 by Train No.57121 (Kazipeth-Ballarshah Passenger). He fell down near Makudi Railway Station and died on the spot. The Station Master, Makudi informed about the untoward incident to the Government Railway Police. The Government Railway Police prepared an inquest panchanama. Dead body of deceased was sent for post-mortem. As per the post-mortem report, the death of deceased was due to injury to brain. There was head injury and other injuries on the part of body of deceased. The legal heirs i.e. the claimants filed claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal claiming compensation. The Railway Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is a contradiction in between the inquest panchanama and joint investigation report. The Railway Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that deceased was not a bona fide passenger. On that ground, rejected the claim of the appellants.
3. Shri A.B. Bambal, learned Counsel has pointed out documents on record. He has pointed out inquest panchanama at Page A-54 and submitted that at the time of inquest panchanama travelling ticket from Sirpur Kagajnagar to Wirur Railway Station was found in the pocket of baniyan of the deceased. Therefore, it is clear that deceased was bona fide passenger. Learned Counsel has submitted that the deceased was coming in Kazipet-Ballarshah Passenger train. He fell down from the train and died due to head injury. Learned Counsel has submitted that it is the burden on the Railway to disprove the claim of the appellants. The Railway Claims Tribunal wrongly recorded its findings. Learned Counsel has submitted that appeal be allowed and claim be granted as prayed. In support of his submission, he has pointed out following judgments :
(i) Union of India vs. Rina Devi, (2018) ACJ 1441 ,
(ii) Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others, (2008) 9 SCC 527 ,
(iii) Union of India vs. Smt. Rani and others,2005 2 TAC 11(All.)
(iv) Meharunisa wd/o Shaikh Kasam and another vs. Union of India in First Appeal No.502/2014, decided by this Court on 13-2-2015.
(v) The Union of India vs. Kamla Ramdas Bhasme in First Appeal No.774/2012, decided by this Court on 22-4-2015.
(vi) The Union of India vs. Dhurpatabai w/o Kondiba Gomsale and another in First Appeal No.305/2010 decided by this Court on 01-7-2017.
(vii) Kavita wd/o Sanjay Awachare and others vs. Union of India in First Appeal No.307/2017 decided by this Court on 24-1-2018.
4. Shri N.P. Lambat, learned Counsel has submitted that deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Railway ticket was planted later on. The Head Constable Pawar who prepared inquest panchanama also signed on the joint investigation report. As per the joint investigation report, deceased was not the bona fide passenger. Learned Counsel has pointed out judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Kamrunnissa vs. Union of India,2019 12 SCC 391 .
5. As per the record, information of incident was given by the Station Master, Makudi to the Government Railway Police stating that one dead body was lying on the railway track near Railway Station, Makudi. On the basis of information given by the Station Master, Head Constable Pawar went to the spot of incident and prepared crime detail form. As per this crime detail form, deceased was found lying dead on the railway track. Deceased was wearing dhoti and baniyan. One railway ticket was found in the pocket of baniyan. That ticket was from Sirpur Kaghaznagar to Wirur Railway Station.
6. Thereafter joint investigation was carried out and as per the observation, it is mentioned in column that deceased was not a bona fide passenger. It is pe
