Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1777
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH KUMAR, J.
Shiv Pujan Yadav - Appellant
Versus
Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway- Respondent
Misc. Appeal No. 29 of 2014
Decided On : 05-09-2018
For the Appellant : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, ASC.
Headnote:
Claim Tribunal - Rule 13,Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 - FIR-Appellant that claim petition has been filed father of deceased mentioning therein that while his son Ashok Kumar aged about was travelling from Rourkela to he boarded train thereafter changed train and boarded on train Express for going to on Ticket fell down at Railway Station and died in hospital on - In support of his application applicant has filed copy of SM’s memo FIR Inquest Report Post Mortem Report Final Report and death certificate Claim Tribunal has returned finding that deceased Ashok Kumar was travelling on Ticket No- C- from Rourkela - At Station Ashok Kumar boarded Train No Patna Express for going - Ticket No- has been mentioned in Inquest Report and Police Final report Respondent has not refuted same- On basis of above evidence finding has been recorded that deceased was a bona-fide passenger- Therefore finding recorded by Tribunal is hereby confirmed –Held, Railway Authority as per mandate of above Rule but Railway Authority has failed to discharge his onus- Accordingly adverse inference has to be drawn against Railway Authority view of above discussion this Court finds that incident by which son of claimant died is covered under definition of ‘Untoward Incident and accordingly claimant is entitled for compensation far as quantum of compensation is concerned as per judgment rendered by Apex Court in case of Union of India Devi reported law has been declared by Apex Court that quantum of compensation should be granted which was existing on of accident along with interest from date of accident or compensation prevalent on date of Award whichever is higher - Appeal allowed
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-Railway.
2. The instant appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 16.08.2013 passed in Case No. OA(IIU)/RNC/2010/0193 by the Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that claim petition has been filed by Shiv Pujan Yadav, father of the deceased, mentioning therein that on 14.06.2010, while his son, Ashok Kumar aged about 21 years was travelling from Rourkela to Jehanabad, he boarded the train at Roukela to Hatia and thereafter changed the train and boarded on train No. 8624 DN Hatia-Patna Express for going to Jehanabad on Ticket No. C-05329006, fell down at Bandhua Railway Station and died in hospital on 15.06.2010. In support of his application, applicant has filed copy of SM’s memo, Fardbayan, FIR, Inquest Report, Post Mortem Report, Final Report and death certificate.
3. Railway has contested the claim by filing written statement on 12.07.2011 by stating that the incident is not admitted as no eyewitness has been indicated in the application.
4. Tribunal has framed issued firstly regarding bonafide passenger and secondly regarding death due to untoward incident.
5. So far bonafide passenger is concerned, the Claim Tribunal has returned the finding that deceased Ashok Kumar was travelling on Ticket No. C-05329006 from Rourkela to Jehanabad. At Hatia Station, Ashok Kumar boarded Train No. 8624 DN-Hatia-Patna Express for going to Jehanabad. Ticket No. has been mentioned in Inquest Report (Ext.A-6) and Police Final report (Ext.A-8). Respondent has not refuted the same. On the basis of the above evidence, finding has been recorded that deceased was a bona-fide passenger. Therefore, finding recorded by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed.
6. So far as another issue relating to untoward incident is concerned, admittedly no eyewitness has come before the Claim Tribunal and witness produced by the claimant is not an eyewitness. The only circumstantial evidence has been produced. The Claim Tribunal has declined the contention of the claimant on two reasons: (i) No one has seen him getting down at Koderma to buy eatables and water, as the applicant is not an eye witness. (ii) At 5.30 hrs. early in morning, no one will get down to buy eatables, apparently the deceased was standing at the door of the bogie and thus fell down the whole story is totally imaginary and fictitious and not true and rejected the claim of the claimant by recording that this is a self-inflicted injury and the incident is not covered under the definition of ‘Untoward incident’ as defined in Section 123(c)(2) of the Railway Act, 1989.
7. Above finding has been recorded by the Tribunal without any evidence and only on the basis of surmises and conjecture The materials available on record as Ext. R-5, which is station diary report prepared by the Station Manager, Bandua, which suggests that it has been reported by a Gangman namely Tunnu Lal Gupta and Porter namely Bhagwan Rajwansi of Bandua Railway Station that a person aged about 20 years was lying besides the railway tract at KM 454/07-09. It has further been reported that for treatment, he was sent by 2815 UP Train at 8.26 AM and a report has been given to GRP, Gaya and PC, Gaya at 7.10 AM.
8. As per Annexure-8 which is the final report submitted by the GRP, Gaya, which suggests that GRP has received the deceased at Gaya Railway Station and taken him in Hospital where he was declared brought dead.
9. From the above material facts, it is evident that deceased was a bonafide passenger and he fell down from the train that stands proved in view of the above circumstances discussed hereinabove.
10. Defence taken by the Railway that it is not covered under the definition of Untoward Incident and has taken the defence of self-inflicted injury.
Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 is quoted hereinbelow:
"124A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents. When in
