र॓ल दावा अिधकरण, कोलकाता (cid:14)ायपीठ BEFORE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCH Coram : Mr. Sanjay Singh Gehlot, Hon’ble Vice-Chairman Claim Application No. OA(IIu)/KOL/109/2019 Date of filing of claim application : 12.07.2019 Date of Judgement : 03.10.2023

1. Sharmistha Paul, wife of the deceased, Amitava Paul

2. Ayan Paul, son of the deceased, Amitava Paul Residing at :

AW 14, Arunachal West, Sodepur, Panihati (m), Sodepur, North 24 Parganas 700110 ….…….. Applicants -VS-

Union of India represented through The General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata ………… Respondent Claim for Rs.8,00,000/-

Present : Shri Navin Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant.

Smt. S. Mukherjee, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent.

िनण(cid:4)य

J U D G E M E N T

1. This application has been filed under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with 124-A of Railways Act, 1989 by the applicants i.e. wife and son of the deceased, Amitava Paul for compensation on account of death of the victim, who allegedly died in an untoward incident.

2. Brief history of the case of the applicant is that on 21.12.2018 the deceased was travelling from Sodepur to Sealdah Railway station by train with a valid 2nd class monthly ticket bearing No.23014546 & ID card No.92471354. He fell down from the said train between Agarpara and Sodepur Railway stations and died on the spot.

3. The respondent railway has filed a written statement denying the facts stated in the claim application. It has been averred therein that no witness was found or mentioned in any police documents. Rather the victim never boarded any train. As per DRM’s report, the victim was going to Sealdah for his work place. When he was crossing Railway track, he was knocked down by a train. The victim was not a bona fide Contd…P/1 passenger of any train. From the statement of Ayan Paul, annexed with the DRM’s report, it was revealed that the inquest witnesses were not the eye-witness of the alleged incident. The incident ,therefore, did not fall under the purview of the definition of ‘untoward incident’ as per Section 123(c)(2) of Railways Act.

Upon pleadings of both sides and documents, the issues are recast which are as follows : Issues :

1. Whether the incident on account of which the victim is alleged to have died can be termed as an untoward incident as defined under Section

123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 ?

2. Whether the victim was a bona fide passenger of the train on the date of incident, as alleged ?

3. Whether the applicants are the sole dependents of the deceased in terms of Section – 123 (b) of Railways Act and are entitled to get compensation from the respondent ?

4. Relief, if any.

4. In support of the claim, the applicants filed certain documents to prove relationship with the deceased which were exhibited A/1 & A/2. Besides, the applicants to prove their case filed documents viz. Railway memo (A/3), Investigation Report (A/4), Dead Body Challan (A/5), P.M.Report (A/6), Final Police Report (A/7) Railway Monthly Ticket (A/8) & Seizure List (A/9).

The respondent Railway has furnished an inquiry report duly accepted by DRM/SDAH marked Exh.R/1.

5. The applicant, Sarmistha Paul, wife of the deceased filed an affidavit affirming the facts stated in the claim application. She was examined and cross-examined by Ld.

Counsel for Eastern Railway as AW/1.

6. The issue-wise discussion is as follows :-

Issue No. 1 :

7. Among the documents filed by the applicant, it is seen that SM/Sodpur issued a memo (A/3) to OC/GRP/DDJ & OC/RPF/DDJ dtd.21.12.18 at 13.20 hrs it was reported by some unknown people that one unknown male aged about 55 years was lying dead at Km. 14/8Q-14/6Q between Sodpur and Agarpara and the body was lying outside the Dn main line. Upon receipt of information through memo of SM/Sodpur, UD case no.215/18 dtd.21.12.2018 was registered in Dum Dum GRPS. The inquest report of Contd…P/3 Dum Dum GRPS (A/4) divulged that the inquest witnesses had opined that the deceased at about 9.15 a.m. was travelling by a Dn