Dharmavati Devi v. The Union of India through General Manager, Eastern Railway, 17

Patna High Court MA No.388 of 2012 (7) dt.19-09-2013 2 to Bardwan after purchasing a valid ticket bearing no. 10502 at Sasaram railway station. The husband of the claimant is stated to have an accidental fall and thus suffering grievous injury, he was brought to the Sasaram Sadar Hospital where he died during the course of treatment. On information received from the Station Master on duty at the Sasaram railway station, a U.D. Case bearing no. 02 of 2000 was registered by the G.R.P. on

26.01.2000 stating death due to run over by a train. The final report (Ext. 4) was prepared on the same date i.e. 26.01.2000 and on the basis of the statement gathered from the witnesses, it reported death due to fall by train. The clamant filed the claim application before the tribunal giving rise to Claim Case No. OA 00064 of 2001. A written statement was filed by respondent-Railways raising ornamental objections while contesting the claim. The written statement forms part of lower court records and runs in a single page. Except shifting the burden on the claimant to prove the claim with regard to death by an untoward incident, no other objection has been raised in contest. It is not in dispute that neither any oral nor any documentary evidence was led by the railways to contest the claim. The tribunal on the basis of the rival pleadings framed four issues and adjudicating the said issues Patna High Court MA No.388 of 2012 (7) dt.19-09-2013 3 in the backdrop of the evidence led by the claimant, rejected the claim case and hence this appeal. Mr. Bajarangi Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant as an appellant before this Court has submitted that of the four issues framed by the tribunal, issue no. 2 relatable to untoward incident and issue no. 3 relatable to bona fide passenger are relevant for consideration of the present appeal. He submits that the tribunal while adjudicating on issue no. 2 has tried to make a third case based upon the report of the Station Master that the deceased had been run over by the train. He submits that the tribunal taking a cue from the said report has tried to make out a case of death by the own negligence of the deceased even when, no such objections have been pleaded by the railways. It is submitted that by giving an expanded definition to the term ‘run over’ the tribunal has proceeded to bring the case of the appellant of the deceased within the purview of the proviso to Section 124A and having done so, the tribunal has held the case not to be that of an untoward incident. On the issue of bona fide passenger which was adjudicated as issue no. 3, he submits that even in absence of any evidence to prove to the contrary, the tribunal has held the ticket to have been procured by the claimant by clandestine means. It was thus submitted by Mr. Bajarangi Lal that the judgment Patna High Court MA No.388 of 2012 (7) dt.19-09-2013 4 travelling beyond the pleadings cannot be upheld and is fit to be set aside. The argument of Mr. Lal has been contested by Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, appearing for the railways and who while supporting the findings arrived at by the tribunal has submitted that there is no error in the conclusion drawn by the tribunal in the light of the secondary evidence that was present on record. He submits that since there was evidence to suggest a negligence on the part of the deceased which led to the incident, no infirmity could be attributed to the order impugned. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. Perusal of the records manifests that not less than 11 documentary evidence was led by the claimant in support of the claim which is described at paragraph-5 of the impugned award. Exhibit-3 is the copy of the memo sent by the Station Master which forms basis of the U.D. Case and merely mentions that one ‘male person’ run over by 3010 down. Exhibit- 5 is the inquest report and which categorically mentions at Item-8 and 9, the cause of death as on grounds of fall from train. The name of the witnesses finds mention in the inquest report, namely, Indra Chandra Gupta and Banarasi Prasad Gupta. The statement of the witness Indra Chandra Gupta on affidavit also forms part of Patna High Court MA No.388 of 2012 (7) dt.19-09-2013 5 the record and he confirms his statement in the inquest report. The statement of the witness Indra Chandra Gupta who deposed as applicant-witness no. 2 also forms part of the record. The railway ticket is Exhibit-7. The postmortem report is Exhibit-6 and the final report is Exhibit-4 and which again confirms death by fall from train though it is faint in character. Section 124A of the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and is based on the principles of strict liability / no fault liability. Being a beneficial legislation it has to be given a liberal and wider interpretation and not in a pedantic manner as having been done in the present case. In fact the moment a claim on the basis of an untoward incident as described under Section 123(c ) is set forth, a liability is cast upon the railways to pay compensation and the only means for the railways to avoid the liability would be if the railways by leading evidence can substantiate that the case is covered under the proviso. In no other circumstance the railways can avoid its liability. The conclusion drawn by the tribunal casting aspersions on the depositions and in rejecting the claim case holding it to be a case of run over due to self inflicted injury caused by negligent /willful act of the deceased, is a perverse finding for there is complete absence of evidence to prove the same. A report of run over ipso facto does not bring any case Patna High Court MA No.388 of 2012 (7) dt.19-09-2013 6 within the purview of the proviso unless it is supported by cogent evidence. In the present case neither it is the case of the railways that the case of the deceased falls within the purview of the proviso nor they have led any evidence in that regard rather the tribunal has done a role of a prosecutor as well as an adjudicatory authority. It is by now well settled that a Court cannot travel beyond the pleadings. Whereas it was no body’s case that the death was by reason of self inflicting injury, the tribunal has proceeded to hold as such even in absence of any such pleadings of the railways to that effect. The conclusion drawn by the tribunal is clearly beyond the jurisdiction and cannot be upheld. As I have observed hereinbefore it is neither the case of the railways in the written statement that the death has occurred due to own negligence of the deceased nor they have led any evidence in this direction and in absence whereof no such finding could have been recorded by the tribunal which has clearly acted beyond the jurisdiction conferred upon it. Insofar as the issue no. 4 is concerned, again the finding of procurement of a ticket by the claimant through clandestine means is a finding sans any evidence. The two grounds on which the claim has been rejected, namely, that it was a self inflected injury Patna High Court MA No.388 of 2012 (7) dt.19-09-2013 7 by the deceased due to his own negligent act as also that the ticket was procured through clandestine means are findings based on no evidence. A finding based on no evidence is a perversity and reference in this regard is made to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2010) 13 SCC 216 (Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others), more particularly paragraph 28. For the reasons aforementioned the judgment impugned cannot be upheld and it is set aside. The claim case is allowed. The claimant would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- together with interest @ 6 per cent from the date of filing of the claim case until the date of award and thereafter at the rate of 9 per cent until the date of realization in the light of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2009 SC 3098 (Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.). This appeal is allowed. Let the lower court records be returned to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna forthwith. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J)