Back
2003 Supreme(Cal) 511
High Court Of Calcutta
ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, J. K. BISWAS
SUDHIRA MONDAL - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
F. M. A. 311 Of 1998
Decided On : 09/29/2003
AMUL KRISHNA BASU, ASIT BANERJEE, NIRAPADA MONDAL
The amount of compensation payable for the death of a railway passenger is determined by the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, as amended from time to time, and the claim amount should be determined on the basis of the rate prescribed by the Rules prevailing on the date of making the order of payment.
Headnote:
RAILWAY ACCIDENT - COMPENSATION - DEATH OF PASSENGER - LIABILITY OF RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION - EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF - WITNESS STATEMENT - ENQUIRY REPORT - INTERPRETATION OF RULES - AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION - APPLICABILITY OF AMENDED RULES.
Fact of the Case:
On 25th November, 1995, an accident occurred at Howrah Station involving a local train, resulting in the death of two passengers, including Shib Prosad Mondal. The deceased's widow, Sudhira Mondal, filed a claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The railway administration contested the claim, alleging that the deceased was travelling on the buffer of the train and was not a bona fide passenger.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal rejected the claim application, holding that the deceased was travelling on the buffer of the train and was not entitled to compensation. The court, on appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order and allowed the claim application, holding that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger in the compartment of the train.
Issues: 1. Whether the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger in the compartment of the train or on the buffer of the train. 2. The burden of proof in establishing the status of the deceased as a passenger. 3. The evidentiary value of witness statements and enquiry reports in determining the status of the deceased. 4. The applicability of the amended Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, in determining the amount of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The burden of proof lies on the railway administration to establish that the deceased was not travelling as a bona fide passenger. 2. Witness statements and enquiry reports are admissible as evidence, but their credibility and weight must be carefully assessed. 3. In the absence of credible evidence to the contrary, the direct evidence of a witness who testified that the deceased was travelling as a co-passenger in the compartment of the train must be accepted. 4. The amended Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, which increased the compensation amount for death from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 4,00,000/-, apply to claims arising from accidents that occurred before the amendment, provided that the order of payment is made after the effective date of the amendment.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal, and allowed the appellant's claim application. The respondent (railway administration) was directed to pay the appellant Rs. 4,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of her husband.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') The appellant, who was the applicant before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Calcutta Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), is aggrieved by the order dated 9th July, 1996 passed by the Tribunal in her claim application (No. A/52/96 ). By the impugned order the claim application was rejected on contest.
( 2 ) THE appellant is the widow of one Shib Prosad Mondal of 2. Bibekananda Colony, P. O. Bhattangar (Liluah), in the District of Howrah of the State of West Bengal. On 25th November, 1995 at Howrah Station of the Eastern Railway the C-252 down Bardhaman-Howrah (Chord) EMU local met with an accident. The nature of the accident was that the tram dashed against the dead end buffer of platform No. 6 at Howrah Station. In consequence of the accident, which took place at 10. 03 hrs. , (a) the driving coach No. ER-10968 got mounted, (b) coach No. ER-11613 (position 4th from driving coach) got derailed of Howrah end trolley one wheel and Delhi end trolley one wheel, and (c) coach No. ER-10097 (position 5th from driving coach) got derailed of Howrah end trolley two wheels causing damage to the buffer. As a result of the accident two persons died, five persons sustained grievous injury, and eight persons sustained simple injury. Shib Prosad Mondal was one of the two dead persons.
( 3 ) ON 16th January, 1996 the appellant filed an application under section 16 of the Act before the Tribunal. As dependant of the deceased, she claimed compensation at Rs. 2,00,375/-, in addition to the, ex-gratia amounting to Rs. 10,000/- that had been paid by the railway administration. By an application for amendment dated 11th March, 1996 she prayed for amendment of the claim application so as to incorporate the names of the minor son and minor daughter of the deceased in the category of claimants. It was originally stated in the claim application that the deceased was possessing a monthly ticket which was lost at the time he met with the accident. By the amendment application this statement was sought to be amended to the effect that the monthly ticket was 'ex-Liluah to Howrah and back. "
( 4 ) THE respondent No. 1 (that is, the Union of India) filed a written statement dated 20th March, 1996. The contents of the written statement were as follows :"the Written Statement/objection petition on behalf of the respondent Most respectfully sheweth : 1. That the statements and allegations made in the application are denied save and except what are specifically admitted hereinafter. 2. That the petitioner is called upon to prove that applicant was a bona fide passenger in C-252 DN Local train at Howrah Station on 25. 11. 95. , otherwise he will be treated as tresspasser in the above train within the meaning of Sec. 50 and Sec. 55 of the Rly. Act-1989 which will disentitle him to any compensation. 3. As per D. R. M. /hwh/e Rly. report is that Cause of Accident (Prima Facie) disturbance of jumper connection between 1st and 2nd coach by unauthorized persons travelling on buffer in that location. 4. The petition is bad for non-joinder. 5. That the Respondent craves leave to file additional written statement on completion of the enquiries if found subsequently necessary. It is, therefore, prayed that your honour will kindly dispose of the claim application in the light of the above observations, for the act of kindness your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray. "
( 5 ) AN application dated 2nd July, 1996 was filed by the appellant; by this she prayed for summoning a co-passenger of the deceased as witness to record his oral evidence. It appears, the appellant's such prayer was allowed, and on 9th July, 1996 oral evidence of one Satrugna Singh was recorded by the Tribunal. His deposition reads as follows :"on 25/11/95 I, Satrugna Singh, boarded a local EMU train at liluah bound for Howrah at about 10 AM. Shib Prosad Mo
