Advocates:
['MAHESH TEWARI', '', 'SABYASANCHI', 'SUNIL KUMAR', 'AMRITANSH VATS']

-1- M.A. No. 114 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

M.A. No. 114 of 2014

Union of India through the Deputy Chief Commercial Manager /

Claims, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata through N. Marandi, son of

late J. Maranadi, at present posted as Presiding Officer, RCT/Ranchi,

South Eastern Railway, P.O. & P.S.-Chutia, District-Ranchi.

..... …

Appellant

Versus

Sanjay Kumar Gupta @ Sanjay Gupta, son of late Vijay Kumar Gupta

@ Vijay Gupta, resident of House No. 1, Anil Surpath, New River

View Colony, P.O. & P.S.-Kadma, District- East Singhbhum at

Jamshedpur.

..... …Respondent

--------

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

For the Appellant

:

Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondent

:

Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate.

:

Mr. Kunal Priyam, Advocate.

:

Ms Rashmi Kumari, Advocate.

------

16/ 02.01.2023

Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel appearing for the sole-

respondent.

2.

This appeal has been filed challenging the validity and

legality of the judgment dated 23.08.2013, passed by the Railway Claims

Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi, in Case No. TAU/RNC/2005/2017,

whereby and whereunder the claim was decreed to the tune of Rs.

4,00,000/-, out of which, Rs. 1, 00,000/- was to be paid to Divynashu

Gupta, as he is in custody of the applicant Sanjay Kumar Gupta and the

rest amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- may be kept in the fixed deposit for five

years on monthly interest scheme for taking care of the monthly expenses

of the applicant / respondent.

3.

The claim application was originally filed by Anjali Gupta,

wife of Vijay Kumar Gupta (deceased). Subsequently, by way of

amendment petition and in view of the fact that said Anjali Gupta was no

longer interest in claim, the said claim was given to her brother-in-law

(Sanjay Kumar Gupta) and her son Divyanshu Gupta, as the said Anjali

Gupta remarried and her daughter is in her custody and her son

Divyanshu Gupta is in the care of Sanjay Kumar Gupta (her elder brother-

in-law). It was averred in the claim that deceased Vijay Kumar Gupta,

was travelling by Utkal Express (Train No. 8477 UP) on 12.09.2004 from

Tata Nagar to Rourkela and he fell down from the running train at Sini

Station between PF-2 and Pole No. 276/11A and was cut into two pieces

and died at the spot.

-2- M.A. No. 114 of 2014

4.

In view of the above background, the claim petition was filed

before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi, which was

awarded in favour of the sole respondent by the judgment and award

dated 23.08.2013, which has been challenged in this appeal by the

appellant-Railway.

5.

Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant

submits that the Tribunal has not appreciated the entire facts as well as the

documents in right direction and the respondent has not been able to

prove the case as he was not a bona fide passenger in the train in question.

He submits that the burden lies on the claimant to prove the incident and

once that is proved, then the onus lies upon the Railway to prove the case.

He submits that Section 123 of the Railway Act, 1989 speaks of definition

and subsequently Section 124 was amended and Section 124(A) has been

inserted, wherein the conditions have been laid down by way of proviso,

the compensation has been dealt with and the same shall be payable if

passenger dies or suffers injury due to reasons assigned in Section 124 of

the said Act. He further submits that the case of the appellant is coming

under the proviso of Section 124(A) of the said Act and that’s why, he is

not liable for the claim