Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
S. KUMAR, J.
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 151 of 2014
(22.7.2019)
Dhaneshwar Ram & Anr. – Appellants
vs.
Union of India – Respondent
Railways Act, 1989 – Sections 123(c) and 124-A – Untoward incident – Death of passenger – Railways have denied compensation as deceased died on account of self-inflicted injuries as such he was not entitled for grant of compensation – Tribunal has rejected claim case of applicant on the ground that identity of deceased and genuineness of ticket as produced are not established – Photographs of deceased and his death certificate are on record, as such, identity of deceased was never disputed by respondent Railways and claim of claimant could not have been dismissed on said ground – Ticket being lost in aftermath of accident cannot be ruled out – In absence of railway ticket, claimant cannot be denied compensation – In an accident or untoward incident presumption is always in favour of passenger to be a bonafide passenger and travelling with a valid ticket unless contrary is proved – Claimants have discharged their initial burden to establish that deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling with a valid train ticket – Inquest report, post-mortem report as well as final report supports claim of claimant/appellant that his son died in an untoward incident and as such are entitled for grant of compensation – Compensation of Rs. 4 Lacs along with 6% interest awarded. (Paras 10, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18)
S. Kumar, J. – Heard the parties.
2. This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been filed for setting aside the order dated 14.01.2014 passed in Claim Application No. OA00316/2003 passed by learned Member Technical of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna by which the claim application of the claimants/appellants has been dismissed.
3. Claimants/appellants are parents of deceased Niranjan Kumar who died in an untoward incident on 08.07.2003 while travelling from 2401Up Shramjivi Express near Gajraula railway station. It has been stated in the claim application that son of claimants/appellants was a labourer and left his home alongwith two others co-villagers/relatives Abhimanyu Kumar and Suraj Kumar on 07.07.2003 for New Delhi by 2401A Rajgir New Delhi Nalanda Express after purchasing valid rail tickets and train No. 2401A becomes 2401Up Saramjivi Express from Patna to New Delhi. It is further stated that as train proceeded from Muradabad to New Delhi due to sudden jerk of the train he fell down from the running train and died.
4. Respondent railways have stated in their w.s. that deceased died on account of self inflicted injuries and his case comes within the exception carved out under Section 124A of the Railways Act.
5. On the basis of pleading of the parties, tribunal framed four issues for its determination.
6. Claimant in his examination in-chief in form of affidavit has stated that his son was unmarried and alongwith two co-villagers/relatives had boarded train from Biharsharif after purchasing a valid second class train ticket for New Delhi and fell down from running train near Gajraula Railway Station due to sudden jerk and died. Awadhesh Ram has also been examined as witness No. 2 on behalf of claimant who has supported the claim case of claimant and has further stated that deceased had purchased railway ticket from Biharsharif railway station in his presence and subsequently he came to know that he died due to fall from running train near Gajraula railway station.
7. Exhibit-A/8 is station memo issued by Station Master, Gajraula to the officer-in-charge, Gajraula dated 08.07.2003 in which it has been stated that Railway porter has informed that one unknown person has died from falling from some passenger train and his dead body is lying near line No. 1 of Up starter signal and to take further steps in the matter. On the basis of said station memo a U.D. case was registered on 08.07.03 at 8.15 A.M. giving rise to U.D. case No. 168/03 and case was enquired by Arun Kumar Tyagi Assistant Sub Inspector and O/C Rail P.S. and in presence of constable Vikash Kumar and constable Chhatrapal Singh, inquest report was prepared but the identity of the deceased could not be ascertained and after taking his photographs and finger prints the inquiry officer found that deceased died due to falling from running train near Up starter signal and thereafter the dead body was sent for postmortem.
8. Postmortem was conducted on 08.07.03 at 5.30 PM and rigor mortis has been found to be present on all four limbs and time of death was stated to be about 1 day before. Fractured injury has been found on occipital bone, temporal bone, parietal bone and clothes and belongings of deceased were seized and sealed in a bundle and sent to S.H.O. G.R.P., Gajraula. Cause of death has been opined as haemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries.
9. AW-2 Awadhesh Ram alongwith others reached the Gajraula G.R.P. on 12.07.2003 after telephonic information received from police and identified the deceased from his photographs and clothes. Inquiry Officer Arun Kumar Tyagi who is also the in-charge Officer G.R.P., Gajraula in its final report submitted to the S.P. Railways, Muradabad has also reported that deceased died due to fall from running train and he prepared the inquest report on 08.07.2003 and on 12.07.2003 four relatives of the deceased came and identified deceased from his photographs and clothes. Death certificate has been iss
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
