Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN, J.
Abula Majan Ansari – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata – Respondent
M.A. No. 760 of 2017
Decided On : 06-12-2022
Judgment - Railway Accident - Code of Civil Procedure, Order 20 Rule 4(2), Railways Act, Section 123(c)(2) - The judgment discusses the necessity of a judgment to contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision therein, and the reasons for such decision. It emphasizes that the judgment should be a self-contained document reflecting the process of reasoning by which the court came to the ultimate conclusion. The court also highlights the importance of the judgment containing reasons based on both oral and documentary evidence, and the need for the reasoning to be supported by evidence on record. The judgment sets aside the previous decision and remands the case to the Railway Claims Tribunal for deciding the issues afresh based on the evidence and documents presented by the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was traveling in a train and got run over at a railway station. The claimants filed a claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, which was dismissed on the grounds that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the incident was considered an untoward incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the previous judgment did not contain the necessary conditions and was based on mere perception and not on evidence. It set aside the judgment and remanded the case to the Railway Claims Tribunal for fresh consideration based on evidence and documents presented by the parties.
Issues: The issues revolved around the determination of whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger and whether the incident was an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of a judgment containing a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision therein, and the reasons for such decision. It highlighted the need for the judgment to be a self-contained document reflecting the process of reasoning by which the court came to the ultimate conclusion.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of, and the case was remanded to the Railway Claims Tribunal for fresh consideration based on evidence and documents presented by the parties.
ORDER :
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment/award dated 13.7.2017 passed in O.A. (IIU)/RNC/99/2016 by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi, whereby, the claim application filed by the claimants has been dismissed.
2. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was travelling in Sealdah-Varanasi Express and was returning to his home from Mumbai. He got run over at Taljhari Railway Station. The claimants received information from one Lalua Bhagat and when they reached the railway station they found that the body of the deceased was cut in two pieces. The death of the deceased occurred in a railway accident, thus, this claim application was filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal.
3. The Railway Claims Tribunal considering the case of the applicants-claimants, dismissed the same vide award dated 13.7.2017 holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as his body was cut into two pieces, it cannot be said that he fell from the train and was run over. Based on the aforesaid finding, the claim application of the claimants has been dismissed.
4. Challenging the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the judgment is absolutely unreasoned one, even it has not been discussed that on what materials, the aforesaid conclusion has been arrived at by the Tribunal. It is his case that respondent in their written statement had taken a plea that no ticket was found from the person of the deceased, which would be evident from the inquest report then, on what basis, the ticket was produced, which was relied upon by the Tribunal is not understood. He further submits that the conclusion that the body of the deceased was cut into two pieces suggests that the deceased tried to commit suicide, is absolutely beyond evidence and the case of the parties. As per him, not informing his parents that he was returning home cannot be said to be strange and cannot lead to a conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger in the said train. Thus the Tribunal could not have concluded that the incident is an untoward incident. He prays to allow this appeal.
5. Counsel for the Indian Railway submits that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, as the ticket which was produced before the Tribunal suggests that the date of journey was 24.5.2016 whereas, the accident had occurred on 03.06.2016. Thus, the deceased was travelling with an invalid ticket and was not a bona fide passenger. As per him, the Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the deceased committed suicide or the dead body was placed on the railway track for getting it run over, which disentitles the claimants from receiving compensation.
6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment.
7. The judgment as defined in Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure, means, “the statement given by the Judge on the grounds for a decree or order”. Order 20 Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides what a judgment should contain. It shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision therein and the reasons for such decision. The judgment should be a self-contained document from which it should appear as to what were the facts of the case and what was the controversy which was tried to be settled by the court and in what manner. The process of reasoning by which the court came to the ultimate conclusion and decreed the suit should be reflected clearly in the judgment. [Ref: Balraj Taneja vs. Sunil Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396]
8. The grounds for its conclusion must be stated by the Court in the judgment. The judgment should contain reasons based on both oral and documentary evidence on the issue which is being decided by the Court. The points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision must be incorporated in the judgment. Those reasons, based upon which the conclusion of the Court is arrived at, must be supported by evide
The judgment emphasized the necessity of a judgment to contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision therein, and the reasons for such decision, reflecting the p....
The main legal point established is the requirement to prove bonafide passenger status and the onus of proof on the applicant, as well as the interpretation of the definition of a passenger under the....
Burden of proof rests with the Railway Administration to establish exclusions under the Railways Act for compensation claims; mere suspicion cannot deny claims without clear evidence.
The burden of proof lies on the railway administration to prove that a deceased passenger was not a bona fide passenger.
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
