High Court
Case Details
MFA 50/2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY This appeal by the railway is directed against the order dated 10.02.201 2 passed by the learned Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Be nch, in Claim Application No.OA-IIu/GHY/2010/0130(Old No.OA.IIu-1208/2010) award ing compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest thereon, on account of the death of the respondent’s husband in an untoward incident, occurred on 26.11.2006, wi thin the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.
Legal Reasoning
The respondent herein has filed an application under Section 16 of the R ailway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- allegin g that while his husband, aged about 44 years, having purchased the railway jour ney ticket bearing No.714364 tried to board 5959 UP Kamrup Express Train from Ho wrah Railway Station to Kokrajhar, in platform No.8, on 26.11.2006, he suddenly fell down from the train at Howrah station due to heavy rush and sudden jerk of the train and as a result of which he sustained head injuries and became sensele ss and thereafter, though he was taken to the train compartment, he, however, wa s de-boarded from the train in another station and thereafter hospitalized and e ventually died on 28.11.2006. The railway administration on receipt of the notice entered appearance a nd filed the written statement contending inter alia that Bipul Dutta, husband o f the claimant, did not die due to the injuries sustained by falling down from t he aforesaid train on 26.11.2006 and he was not a bonafide passenger and as such the claimant is not entitled to any compensation. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for determination:- 1. 2. 3. 4. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question? Whether the incident is covered u/S 123/124A of the Railways Act, 1989? Whether the applicant is entitled for the compensation as applied for? Relief & Order? The respondent/claimant in support of her claim, though examined three w itnesses and proved a number of documents including the railway ticket issued by the railway authority for travelling by the aforesaid train on 26.11.2006, who have been cross-examined by the railway administration, no witness, however, has been examined by the railway administration in support of their pleadings in th e written statement.
Legal Reasoning
The learned Member upon appreciation of the evidence on record, both ora l and documentary, answered the issues in favour of the claimant by holding that the claimant purchased the ticket before tried to board the train on 26.11.2006 but he suddenly fell down because of the heavy rush and the jerk of the train a nd received injuries, and eventually died on 28.11.2006. The Tribunal has reject ed the claim of the respondent railway that he did not board the train with a va lid ticket. The contention of the railway that the ticket which was produced and marked as Ext.-1 was not issued on 26.11.2006, but on 29.10.2006, has also been disbelieved by the Tribunal because of the failure of the railway administratio n to examine necessary witness in that regard. The Tribunal, thereafter, passed the order directing payment of compensation. Hence the present appeal. I have heard Ms. B. Devi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. D.C. K. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. It has been contended by Ms. Devi, learned counsel for the appellant tha t since the Excess Fair Ticket (EFT) (Ext.-1) is issued by the Train Ticket Exam iner (TTE) only when a person is found to be unauthorisedly travelling in the tr ain, the deceased Bipul Dutta cannot be regarded as the bonefide passenger of 59 59 UP Kamrup Express, as according to the claimant herself the accident occurred when Bipul Dutta tried to board the train at Howrah railway station platform No .8. Referring to two documents filed by the railway administration along with th e written statement filed, it has also been submitted that it is apparent theref rom that Bipul Dutta fell in platform No.8 of Howrah railway station not because of any rush or sudden jerk of the train but because of the epilepsy and hence t he claimant is not entitled to the compensation, there being no untoward inciden t and the husband of the claimant being not a bonafide passenger. Mr. Kath Hazarika, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, supporting the order of compensation passed by the learned Membe r, RCT, has submitted that it is evident from Ext.-1, railway ticket, that the d eceased tried to board the train on 26.11.2006 after purchasing the ticket, who, however, has fell down while trying to board the train compartment, because of the heavy rush and sudden jerk of the train and as such the deceased was a bonaf ide passenger of the train. Referring to the said ticket (Ext.-1), it has also b een submitted that the learned Member has rightly rejected the contention of the railway that the said ticket was issued on 29.10.2006 and not on 26.11.2006, as the railway has failed to prove either the said report or EFT book. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the learned Member has rightly passed the awar d, which does not require any interference in appeal. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records including the order under challenge and th e evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by the claimant/respondent. As noticed above, the railway has not examined any witness and no docume nt has been proved, despite the opportunity given, though it has cross-examined the claimant’s witnesses. The respondent/claimant, in order to prove that Bipul Dutta was a bonafi de passenger of 5959 UP Kamrup Express has proved the railway ticket dated 26.11 .2006, which is marked as Ext.-1. The claimant has also deposed that Bipul Dutta tried to board the train after purchasing the ticket, but due to rush and sudde n jerk of the train he fell down in platform No.8 and consequently received seri ous head injuries and eventually died. It is evident from the said ticket (Ext.-1) that the same was issued on 26.11.2006. The contention of the railway authority in the written statement tha t the said ticket was not issued on 26.11.2006 but issued on 29.10.2006 cannot, therefore, be accepted, more so when the EFT book has not been produced and prov ed by the railway to verify the report. It also appears from the ground No.III t aken by the railway administration in the memorandum of appeal that Excess Fair Ticket (EFT) is issued on two circumstances, namely, (i) when the printed (cid:28)card ticket (cid:29) and (cid:28)blank paper ticket (cid:29) are out of stock and (ii) when a passenger is f ound to have travelled without ticket. As discussed above, though the claimant h as made a categorical assertion that the deceased tried to board the train after purchasing the ticket, which has been denied by the railway administration in t he written statement filed, the railway administration did not come forward to e xamine any witness to prove that on that date (cid:28)printed card ticket (cid:29) and (cid:28)blank p aper ticket (cid:29) did not go out of stock but was available and as such that ticket ( Ext.-1) was issued to the deceased as he was found to have travelled without tic ket. Hence the learned Member has rightly held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train. It also appears from the evidence led by the respondent/claimant that th e deceased fell down when he tried to board the train, due to heavy rush and sud den jerk of the train. That part of the evidence also has not been challenged by the railway administration during cross-examination. Bipul Dutta eventually cou ld be brought into the compartment, who, however, was de-boarded on another stat ion and admitted to hospital, who succumb to his injuries on 28.11.2006. The sai d evidence also remains unchallenged. Hence it has rightly been held by the lear ned Member that Bipul Dutta died because of the accident, which amounts to untow ard incident within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.
Decision
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the appeal and hence th e same is dismissed. No cost.