Back
2019 Supreme(Cal) 729
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
HARISH TANDON, SUBHASIS DASGUPTA, JJ.
Suchitra As (Ash) - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
F.M.A. 384 of 2015
Decided On : 11-04-2019
For the Appellant : Mr. Jayanta Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Prasanta Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Sandip Bandhyapadhyay, Adv., Smt. Ruxmini Basu Roy.
For the Respondent: Smt. Aparna Banerjee, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of a bona fide railway ticket does not necessarily negate the claim of being a bona fide passenger in the context of an untoward incident under the Railways Act, 1989.
Headnote:
Railway Claims Tribunal - Untoward Incident - Railways Act, 1989, Section 124-A - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the interpretation of Section 123(c) and Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, focusing on the definition of 'untoward incident' and the exceptions carved out in 'a' to 'e' of Section 124-A. The court emphasized the burden of proof on the claimant, the significance of evidence adduced, and the shift of burden to the railway authority. The judgment also highlighted the legal principle that the mere absence of a ticket does not negate the claim of being a bona fide passenger. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of evidence, the intention of the deceased, and the application of the principles of preponderance of probability.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, a teacher, fell from an overcrowded train and died. The claimant, his widow, filed a claim under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, describing the incident as an untoward incident. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, concluding it was a case of 'run over' and not an untoward incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased's death resulted from an untoward incident under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, not covered within the exceptions in Section 124-A. The court emphasized the significance of evidence, the intention of the deceased, and the burden of proof on the claimant.
Issues: The issues addressed by the court included whether the deceased's death constituted an untoward incident, not covered within the exceptions in Section 124-A, and whether the absence of a bona fide railway ticket would negate the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of evidence, the intention of the deceased, and the burden of proof. The court emphasized the legal principle that the mere absence of a ticket does not negate the claim of being a bona fide passenger.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, holding that the deceased's death resulted from an untoward incident under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. The railway authority was directed to pay compensation to the claimant within 60 days.
JUDGMENT :
Subhasis Dasgupta, J.
1. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 8.7.2008 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata Bench in claim application No. U/252/2005 under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 dismissing the claim case.
2. The Tribunal dismissed the claim case on the ground that it was not a case of “untoward incident”, but a case of ‘run over’. The deceased was not a bone fide passenger.
3. The appellant felt aggrieved with the decision reached by the Railways Claims Tribunal, and preferred the instant appeal. The Tribunal while dismissing the claim application considered each of the circumstances, germane to the incident and proceeded to disbelieve the evidence of two witnesses examined so far as in this case.
4. Some crucial facts, however, may be mentioned here for decision of this appeal.
5. The deceased a permanent teacher of Antpur High School under P.S. Jangipara, District Hooghly, accidentally fell down from an over crowded railway train compartment on 1.4.2004 in course of his return travel from school to his home at Rishra, near kilometre post No. 17/30-17/28 in between Serampore and Rishra Railway Station on the main line at about 18.30 hours, when vegetable baskets, kept staked near the exit/entrance of train compartment, suddenly fell on him causing the deceased victim to loose his balance, and subsequently fell down from the moving train and ultimately died on the spot. The claimant being the widow of the deceased husband preferred this claim case under Section 124-A of the Railway Act, describing the incident to be an untoward incident, not covered within the exception, shown in (a) to (e) of Section 124A of the Railways Act. The accidental falling of the deceased from the moving train was witnessed by PW-2, who had the occasion to board the same train from Serampore, where he had been earlier on the same day to meet his ailing sister, and said witness had seen the untoward incident at the time of his performing return journey from Serampore to Rishra. The claimant/wife produced monthly ticket of her deceased husband covering the date of accident, which was disbelieved by the Tribunal on the premise that it was not recovered from the possession of the dead body of the deceased, or near the precincts of the railway track, where the dead body was found lying after the incident.
6. Learned advocate for the claimant/appellant submitted that mere recovery of dead body within the railway track together with non-recovery of railway ticket would not be itself sufficient to negate a claim case simply on the basis of an observation of Tribunal Judge holding the case to be a run over without any bone fide ticket and thereby denying the possibility of undertaking journey at the relevant point time in a moving train, as contended. Thus, according to appellant/claimant, the observation reached by the Railway Claims Tribunal was not on the basis of evidence adduced by the claimant supported by documents, and rather it was not a perfect appreciation of the evidence adduced so far in this case.
7. Repelling the contention raised by appellant, learned advocate for the respondent being railway authority submitted that since the dead body was lying inside the railway track being separated from his head and both hands, as revealed from the police inquest report together with railway memo issued by the station master of Seoraphuli to O.C GRPS Seoraphuli for arranging disposal of the dead body, the case complained of at best could to be construed to be a run over without any bone fide ticket, not akin to an untoward incident and also being covered within the exception curved out in ‘(a)’ to ‘(e)’ of Section 124-A of Railway Act. Dismissal of the claim case by the Railway Claims Tribunal was perfectly done requiring no interference by the Appellate Court, as contended by appellant.
8. The points to be addressed by this Appellate Court requiring decision are whether the deceased suffered death in consequence o
