Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 31
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
ABHAY AHUJA, J.
Smt. Chandrakala w/o Krishnarao Kale – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
First Appeal No.749 of 2018
Decided on : 02-01-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms.Sumesha Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms.Neerja G. Chaubey, Advocate
Headnote:
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989 – Section 23, 123(c), 124A – Claiming Compensation – Claiming railway accidents – Offence of strict liability - Appeal under section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989 has been preferred by parents of one deceased Kale impugning judgment and order passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur rejecting claim for compensation from respondent-railway made on account of death of their son purportedly in an untoward incident– Held, Court therefore of view that was a bona fide passenger who died in an untoward incident - His parents appellants are entitled to compensation under section 124A of Railways Act - It would not be necessary to deal with judgments cited as same are clearly distinguishable on facts as well as in view of aforesaid findings - Memorandum of Appeal that name of appellant has been deleted - In this view of matter, appellant would be entitled to entire compensation payable under section 124A of Railways Act - Impugned judgment and order passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in case rejecting claim for compensation from respondent-railway on account of death of their son purportedly in an untoward incident is hereby set aside - Railways are directed to pay appellant a sum to be deposited in her savings bank account, subject to verification of her identity and bank details within a period of six weeks - Appeal stands allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989 has been preferred by the parents of one deceased Pradip Krishnarao Kale impugning the judgment and order dated 15th June, 2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in case No.27/O.A.II/RCT/NGP/2004 rejecting the claim for compensation from the respondent-railway made on account of the death of their son Pradip purportedly in an untoward incident on 30th March, 2003.
2. Earlier on, the claim application by the appellants was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur on 30th September, 2004. Against this order the appellants had moved the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court and the same was allowed on 22nd March, 2017, whereby the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur was directed to restore and adjudicate afresh in the matter in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur restored the matter and heard the matter afresh and has passed the impugned judgment and order dated 15th June, 2017.
3. It is the case of the appellants that their son Pradip went to Mumbai on 27th March, 2003 for some private work from Nagpur. It is stated that when he left the house he told the appellant No.1 that probably he would come back on 31st March, 2003 to Nagpur by Sevagram Express; that their son had also left a telephonic message with their neighbour about arriving Nagpur by Sevagram Express on 31st March, 2013. That their son while travelling by 1439 Dn. Sevagram Express Ex Dadar to Nagpur accidentally fell down from the running train at Dahegaon railway station and his dead body was found at Dahegaon station on 31st March, 2003. Although no ticket was found on the person of the deceased, it has been claimed by the father of the deceased in his evidence affidavit that the deceased must have purchased a journey ticket Ex Dadar to Nagpur as no person will travel such a long distance without a ticket due to massive ticket checking and that the journey ticket of the deceased was lost in the alleged incident.
4. Paragraphs 2 to 10 of the affidavit of Shri Krishnarao Kale are usefully quoted as under :-
“2. I say that my son (deceased) Pradip went to Mumbai on 27.03.03 for some private work Ex Nagpur. When he (deceased) left the house the (deceased) told me that probably he will come back on 31.03.03 at Nagpur by Sevagram Express.
3. I say that I was not travelling alongwith deceased son named Pradip. I filed claim case as per information by Police and message kept by my son that probably arriving at Nagpur on 31.03.03 and also message received on telephone to neighbour that arriving by Sevagram Express on 31.03.03 at Nagpur. It presumed that the deceased was travelled by Sevagram Express Ex-Dadar on 30.03.03.
4. I say that my son while travelling by Sevagram Express (i.e. 1439 Dn) Ex-Dadar to Nagpur accidentally fallen down from running train at Dahegaon Railway Station and his dead body was found at Dahegaon stations on 31.03.03.
5. I say that he (deceased) must have purchased a Journey ticket Ex-Dadar to Nagpur and as such no person will travel such a long distance without ticket due to massive ticket checking. Ticket lost on the accident spot.
6. I say that as per inquest panchanama one pocket diary was recovered from dead body of my deceased son named Pradip and phone No.1460, 2680/771 and 778256 were written on his pocket diary.
7. I say that as per police p.m. report the death is caused due to crushed injuries.
8. I say that the death report informed me by police on telephone on 31.03.03.
9. I say that the police has registered a merg No.12/03 u.s. 174 Cr.P.C. i.e. accidental death.
10. I say that the claims case is filed as per police report i.e. spot panchnama, inquest panchnama, post mortem report and telephonic message received from my deceased son named Pradip. That is he was coming by Sevagram Express at Nagpur on 31.03.03.” (Emphasis supplied)
5. In the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi, AIR 2018 SC 2362,
