Miscellaneous Appeal No. 281 of 2010 · Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.281 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Sita Ram Yadav son of Late Tetar Yadav. 2. Smt.Vimala Devi wife of Sita Ram Yadav, son of Late Tatar Yadav, both resident of village- Matadih, P.S. Dharhara, District Munger, Bihar .... .... Appellant/s Versus The Union of India through its General Manger, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, Now Eastern Central Railway, Hazipur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pravin Kumar Gupta, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mahesh Prasad, Adv. Mr. Shabbir Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Binay Kumar, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 9 09-10-2013
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Pravin Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Shabbir Ahmad, learned counsel for the Railways. This appeal under Section 23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) is directed against the order dated 15.1.2010 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in Claim Application No. OA 00060 of 2000 whereby the claim case has been dismissed. Mr. Gupta learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that of the two issues on which the claim of the claimants who are the parents of the deceased, was tested namely; (a) Whether the death of the son of the claimants was an 2 Patna High Court MA No.281 of 2010 (9) dt.09-10-2013 2 / 5 untoward incident; and (b) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger? Whereas the Tribunal has upheld the contention of the claimants that the death of the son of the claimants admittedly was an untoward incident but the claim has been rejected on grounds that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it was the specific case of the claimants who are appellants before this Court that the deceased after purchasing a ticket bearing No. 46676 at the Madhepura Railway Station for travelling to Khagaria, had boarded on train and had reached Saharsa and whereafter by boarding 319 Up to go to Khagaria, he fell down at the outer signal due to push by the co-passengers and succumbed to the injuries suffered. It is stated that while the tribunal has admitted that the death was an untoward incident but by pointing discrepancies/variation in the evidence of the witness, the claim has been rejected on grounds that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger even when the statement of the claimants giving the ticket number was neither proved to be a false statement nor the number was proved to be a fake number, by the railways. The argument of Mr. Gupta has been contested by Mr. 3 Patna High Court MA No.281 of 2010 (9) dt.09-10-2013 3 / 5 Ahmad, to submit that whereas it is the specific case of the claimants that a ticket was purchased by them for travelling from Madhepura to Saharsa but then there is no statement regarding any ticket being purchased by the deceased for going to Khagaria. He thus submits that considering the variation in the statement of the witness, the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with and the claim has been rightly rejected. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials on record. The fact is not in dispute and the death of the son of the claimants who are appellants before this Court did occur while travelling in 319 Up when due to jerk and jostling by the co- passengers, the deceased fell down and suffering grievous injuries, he deceased. The contention of the claimants that their son died in the untoward incident has been accepted by the Tribunal while recording its finding at paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment and order while dealing with Issue No.3 relatable to untoward incident. In fact, the Tribunal even while dealing with Issue No.2 relatable to bonafide passenger, has clearly recorded in paragraph 11 that an availability of a ticket on the person of a deceased passenger is not sacrosanct and for the said sole reason, the claim 4 Patna High Court MA No.281 of 2010 (9) dt.09-10-2013 4 / 5 cannot be rejected. Perusal of the impugned judgment manifests that primarily in view of the discrepancy in the statement of Shatrughan Prasad Yadav who was led as Applicant witness No.2 that the Tribunal has concluded that the claim was based on incorrect facts. It is not in dispute that the claimants had given ticket No. 46676 which according to them was the number of the ticket purchased by their deceased son. It is again not in dispute that no evidence either oral or documentary was led by the railways to contest this statement. Merely there being a discrepancy in the statement of the claimants and the witness on its own would not be sufficient to disallow a claim unless it is proved by cogent evidence that the claim was set up on a fraud. Admittedly, no such evidence was led by the railways to establish fraud. Paragraph 6 of the claim application containing proof of particulars specifically mentions that the deceased purchased a second class train ticket to travel from Madhepura to Khagaria and came to Saharsa by a train whereafter he boarded Train No. 319 Up to go to Khagaria when at the outer signal of Khagaria Railway Station, he got pushed out of the train by the co-passengers. The said statement of the claimants have not been tested by the railways against any oral or documentary evidence. 5 Patna High Court MA No.281 of 2010 (9) dt.09-10-2013 5 / 5 In view of the circumstances, where the statement of the claimant regarding a bonafide purchase of ticket by their deceased son has not been proved to be a false statement by aid of oral or documentary evidence, the Tribunal has clearly gone beyond the jurisdiction to reject the claim on grounds of the deceased not being a bona fide passenger, merely because of variation in the statement of witness. For the reasons aforementioned, the judgment impugned cannot be upheld and is set aside. The claim is allowed. The appellants shall be entitled to the claim of Rs. 4 lacs together with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim case until the date of award and thereafter at the rate of 9% until the date of its realization.
Decision
The appeal is allowed. Let the lower Court Records be returned to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, forthwith. Bibhash/- (Jyoti Saran, J)