SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Jhk) 1359

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.N. PATHAK, J.
Sunil Ram – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India Rep. by General Manager, South Eastern Railways – Respondent
M.A. No. 544 of 2016
Decided On : 07-12-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Chaitali Ch. Sinha.
For the Respondents: Prashant Vidyarthi, Romit Kumar.

The burden of proof on the claimant, the definition of untoward incident, and the principles established in relevant judgments are crucial in determining compensation claims under the Railways Act, 1989.

Headnote:

Railway Claims Tribunal - Compensation Claim - Railways Act, 1989, Section 123(c-2), Section 124A - The court discussed the authenticity of the fardbayan, the definition of untoward incident, and the burden of proof on the claimant. The court relied on the judgments of Union of India vs. Rina Devi and Nikhat Parveen vs. Union of India to establish the legal principles and interpretations that influenced its decision.

Fact of the Case:

The appeal was against the dismissal of a claim application seeking compensation for the death of Sahdeo Ram in a rail accident. The deceased fell from a running train, sustained injuries, and later died. The claimants argued that the deceased was a bona-fide passenger, while the Railway denied any untoward incident and compensation liability.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Railway failed to prove that the incident did not fall within the definition of an untoward incident under the Railways Act, 1989. It held that the claimants were entitled to compensation based on the evidence presented.

Issues: The issues included the deceased's status as a bona-fide passenger, the occurrence of an untoward incident, and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the burden of proof on the claimant, the definition of untoward incident under the Railways Act, and the principles established in the judgments of Union of India vs. Rina Devi and Nikhat Parveen vs. Union of India.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashed the previous judgment, and directed the respondent-Railway to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 along with interest, or Rs. 8,00,000, whichever is higher, within eight weeks.

JUDGMENT :

S.N. PATHAK, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 29.07.2016, passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. OA(IIU)RNC/2014/0015, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim application filed by the appellants seeking compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs along with interest on account of death of Sahdeo Ram, who died in an rail accident.

3. The facts of the case in short is that the deceased, Sahdeo Ram had gone to his sister's place on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan and was returning from Bokaro to Ranchi on 31.08.2004. The said Sahdeo Ram purchased valid ticket to travel from Bokaro to Ranchi and had gone to the station and boarded the Maurya Express. Since there was heavy rush inside the compartment, when the train started moving, the said Sahdeo Ram fell down from the running train and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, he was admitted by the G.R.P. Bokaro to Bokaro General Hospital and in course of treatment he died on 20.09.2004. After the death of the deceased the son of the appellant namely Anil Ram gave a written application to the police on 22.09.2004, which was forwarded to Officer Incharge Bokaro Steel City Rail and on the basis of such statement U.D. Case bearing GRPS Bokaro U.D. Case No. 12/04 dated 28.09.2004 was registered. Thereafter, the police prepared inquest report and final report and submitted the same on 28.09.2004. The police investigated the case and prepared the inquest report in which on the basis of witnesses, it held that the deceased died due to accidental fall from running train. The police submitted the final report in which it has categorically been stated that deceased died as a result of an untoward incident. The doctor who has conducted the post mortem has also opined that the cause of death is due to severe injuries due to accident. It was the specific case of the appellants that deceased was a bona-fide passenger, which has also been corroborated by the appellant No. 2 by way of filing an affidavit before the learned Tribunal and also Rakesh Kumar Bhauiyan, who had gone to see off the deceased at the station.

4. Upon notice, respondent-Railway filed its written statement and denied that there was any untoward incident and submitted that the injuries were sustained by late Sahdeo Ram while he was walking on the Railway track and at that time he was dashed by a train coming from Ranchi. It was further alleged that this claim petition is based on concocted story and as such, the appellants-applicants are not entitled for any compensation.

5. After perusal of the documents and going through the averments made in the written statements, considering the evidences led and the examination of the witness, the learned Tribunal framed the followings issues:

(I) Whether Sahdeo Ram is a bona-fide passenger as alleged?

(II) Whether any untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c-2) of the Railways Act, 1989 occurred to him while travelling by Train Maurya Express from Bokaro Steel City to Ranchi Jn. On 31.08.2004?

(III) Whether the applicants are entitled for compensation as claimed and other relief, if any?

6. The learned Tribunal after discussing cach and every issues in details came out with a finding that the applicants are not entitled for any compensation under Section 123(c-2) read with Section 124A of the Railways (Amendment) Act, 1994 and accordingly, dismissed the claim application filed by the applicants-appellants.

7. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant-appellants have knocked the door of this Hon'ble Court.

8. Ms. Chaitali Ch. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the applicants-appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has miserably failed to evaluate the authenticity of the Fardbayan of deceased. It is an established fact that deceased has lost his right leg and right hand and found lying unconscious in the railway track. However, just after the accident, the Railway Police has recorded the fardbayan of the dece

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top