Beena Devi @ Smt. Beena Devi v. The Union of India

Patna High Court MA No.435 of 2012 (7) dt.19-09-2013 2 about 11.00AM the said Pawan Kumar received a telephonic message that Ravi Prakash has fallen down from the train and has got injured in between Dharahra and Masudan railway stations. The said Pawan Kumar along with the family members of the deceased reached the place of occurrence where they found the dead body of Rabi Prakash near the railway line. The belongings as well as the railway ticket were missing. A U.D. case was registered by the Jamalpur Police Station giving rise to Jamalpur (Rail) P.S. U.D. Case No.30 of 2001. The deceased was survived by his parents. The mother of the deceased filed the claim case before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna giving rise to Claim Case No.OA-00071 of 2002 and the claim case having been rejected by the order impugned hence this appeal. Mr. Vivekanand Vivek, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the appellant while the respondent has been represented by Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate. Mr. Vivek with reference to the judgment and order impugned has submitted that the tribunal by simply doubting the documents and the oral evidence led by the claimant has chosen to reject the claim case even when the accident is admitted. It is submitted that the findings as present at paragraphs 8 to 14 of Patna High Court MA No.435 of 2012 (7) dt.19-09-2013 3 the impugned order, manifests that the tribunal by taking note of irrelevant consideration has rejected the claim case. One feature of this adjudication is that although except for the written statement no oral or documentary evidence was led by the railways but the tribunal in paragraph 6 has referred to Exhibit R/1 even when neither any such document finds place on record of the claim case nor finds mention anywhere in the impugned order. This court fails to understand the knowledge of the said exhibit which conspicuous by its absence. The arguments of Mr. Vivek have been contested by Mr. Singh who submits that the observation of the tribunal at paragraph 12 reflects serious suspicion as to the documents submitted by the claimant in support of the claim and in which circumstances there could not have been any other conclusion. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. The death is admitted. It is also not in dispute that the death took place on a railway track and an FIR was instituted giving rise to Jamalpur (Rail) P.S. U.D. Case No.30 of 2001. A death on a railway track would be presumed to be a case of untoward incident, until such time the railway choose to dispel this presumption by leading cogent evidence. Patna High Court MA No.435 of 2012 (7) dt.19-09-2013 4 The presumption is rebuttable but the onus lies with the railway which has not been discharged in the present case. Thus even in absence of any cogent evidence led by the railways to contest that the death of the deceased was in any manner otherwise than by way of untoward incident this role has been taken over by the tribunal to reject the claim case on irrelevant considerations. It is hardly relevant as to why the deceased boarded the AC coach. It is not even relevant that instead of mentioning Patna junction as the destination, the application mentioned Kiul railway station specially when subsequently by filing an amendment application on 9.1.2012, the destination was permitted to be altered to Patna Junction. Any change of the destination is irrelevant so long the deceased happens to be a passenger of a train. It is again irrelevant that the FIR, the inquest report and other documents do not mention the name of the deceased, so long it is not in dispute that the dead body of the deceased was that of the claimant‟s son. Section 124A of the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation based on the principles of „strict liability‟ which is also known as „No fault liability‟. There is no fault finding mission involved while adjudicating such matters by tribunal. No evidence has been led by the railway to bring the claim Patna High Court MA No.435 of 2012 (7) dt.19-09-2013 5 within the purview of the proviso and until such time that the same falls within the purview of section 124A there is a definite liability cast upon the railway to pay the compensation under the provisions of section 124A. The observations of the tribunal to reject the claim case are not only conjectures but is perversity personified, as explained in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2010)13 SCC 216 (Municipal Committee Hoshiarpur vs. Punjab State Electricity Board) at paragraph 28 which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: “28. If a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then the finding is rendered infirm in the eye of the law. If the findings of the Court are based on no-evidence or evidence which thoroughly unreliable or evidence that suffers from the vice of procedural irregularity or the findings are such that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings, then the findings may be said to be perverse. Further if the findings are either ipse dixit of the Court or based on conjecture and surmises, the judgment suffers from the additional infirmity of non-application of mind and thus, stands vitiated.” For the reasons aforementioned the judgment and order cannot be upheld and is accordingly set aside. The claim Patna High Court MA No.435 of 2012 (7) dt.19-09-2013 6 case stands allowed. The claimant would be entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- together with interest @ 6% from the date of filing the claim application till the date of award and thereafter @ 9% till the date of its realization following the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2009 SC 3098: (2009)7 SCC 372 ( Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi vs. Union of India). Since the claim case is of the year 2001 the entire calculation and the payment should be made by the railways within a period of three months the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order Let the lower court records be remitted to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, forthwith. SKPathak/- (Jyoti Saran, J)