High Court
Case Details
MFA 68/2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY This appeal by the Railway Administration is directed against the order dated 16 .1.2013 passed by the learned Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwah ati Bench in Claim Application No. OA-IIu/GHY/2011/0118(Old No. OA.IIu-118/11), awarding an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate o f 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of or der with a further direction to pay the said amount within a period of 90 days f ailing which it is directed that the rate of interest would be 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of payment. Out of the said amount an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was directed to be paid by cheque in the name of the respondent/ claimant and the remaining amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- be invested in his name in a nationalized bank in fixed deposit scheme for three years.
Legal Reasoning
The respondent as claimant filed an application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989 claiming compensation for Rs. 10,00,000/- on account o f the death of his son Jyorish Marak in an untoward incident, within the meaning of Section 123 (c)(1) of the 1989 Act, contending inter alia that on 17.7.2011 while his son Jyotish Marak, aged about 24 years, was travelling with a valid Ra ilway ticket by Dn Silghat Passenger train from Chaparmukh to Khetry he accident ally fell down from the running train near Khetri Railway station due to over cr owding and commotion of the passengers and died on the spot. It has also been co ntended that the claimant, who is the father of Jyotish Marak, was dependant on the income of Jyotish Marak. The claim of the claimant was objected to by the Railway Administration by filin g written objection contending inter alia that Jyotish Marak did not die because of any untoward incident but death was caused as he was ran over while trying t o cross the railway line for fishing. It was also contended that he was never a passenger of Dn Silghat Passenger train. The claimant in support of the claim examined two witnesses namely; the claimant himself as witness No. 1 and Lachit Baishya, a co passenger as witness No. 2. T he claimant has also proved a number of documents apart from the certificate iss ued by the president of the Gaon Panchayat. The witnesses were duly cross examin ed by the Railway Administration. No witness, however, has been examined by the Railway Administration in support of their plea that the deceased was not travel ling by the train and his death was not caused due to untoward incident but was because as he attempted to cross the Railway line for fishing. The Railway Admin istration, however, has filed an enquiry report submitted by the DRM Lumding in support of their contention in the written objection filed. The learned Member (Technical), upon appreciation of the evidence on record has passed the aforesaid order awarding compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- placing relia nce on the evidence of the co-passenger, witness No. 2, as well as the claimant, witness No. 1 and rejected the contention of the Railway Administration that th e death did not occur due to untoward incident as they have failed to produce an y witness in support of the report submitted by them. I have heard Ms B Devi, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant. It has been contended by the learned standing counsel for the appellant that as it is evident from the report submitted by the DRM Lumding that Jyotish Marak wa s not a passenger of the train in question and he died as the aforesaid train ra n over him while he attempted to cross the railway line for fishing, the Tribuna l ought not to have passed the award. The learned counsel further submits that t he claimant also could not prove that he was dependant on the income of Jyotish Marak so as to entitle him to get the order for compensation. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that a s the claimant by examining two witnesses including himself and also a co-passen ger could prove that Jyotish Marak boarded Dn Silghat Passenger train at Chaparm ukh for travelling to Khetri along with the witness No. 2 by purchasing a valid ticket who just before reaching Khetri Railway station fell down from the train due to over crowding in the compartment and as a result of which he was ran over by the said train, the Tribunal has rightly passed the award for compensation o f Rs. 4,00,000/-. The learned counsel for the claimant has further submitted tha t the claimant could also prove that he was dependant on the income of the decea sed. It has also been submitted that though this witness has been cross examined by the Railway Administration not even a suggestion was put that the deceased w as not a passenger travelling in the train and death was caused when the decease d made an attempt to cross the railway line. The learned counsel, therefore, sub mits that the award passed by the Tribunal needs no interference in appeal. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the partie s and also perused the records, which was called for vide order dated 20.5.2013. The claimant in order to prove his case, as projected in the claim petition, has examined two witnesses namely the claimant himself as witness No. 1 and one Lac hit Baishya, a co-passenger as witness No. 2. Lachit Baishya in his evidence has stated that he and Jyotish Marak boarded Dn S ilghat Passenger train at Chaparmukh for Khetri after purchasing the tickets at Chaparmukh. He has also stated on oath that just before reaching Khetri Railway Station, Jyotish Marak fell down from the train due to rush and over crowding in the compartment and as a result of which he was ran over by the train. Witness No. 2 has also stated that the Railway tickets both of himself as well as of Jyo tish Marak were with Jyotish Marak. Witness No. 1, the claimant himself, has als o stated in the same line. He has further stated that he was dependant on the in come of the deceased, Jyotish Marak, who was travelling by Dn Silghat Passenger train from Chaparmukh to Khetri. Though those witnesses were cross examined by t he Railway Administration no contradiction, however, could be brought out. The R ailway Administration during cross examination did not even put a suggestion to those witnesses that the deceased was not a valid passenger and travelling by th e said train and that he was ran over by the said train while he made an attempt to cross the railway line for fishing. The Railway Administration though has sp ecifically pleaded the same in the written objection filed and in support of whi ch a report allegedly prepared, based on the statements of few persons recorded during enquiry, by the DRM was submitted, no attempt was made by the Railway Adm inistration to prove the contents of the said report by examining any witness, d espite giving opportunity in that regard. In the absence of any evidence in supp ort of the claim of the Railway Administration in the written objection, their p lea in the written objection cannot be accepted. On the other hand the claimant could prove that he was dependant on the income of Jyotish Marak who died in an untoward incident occurred on 17.7.2011 when he fell down from the train because of over crowding in the compartment while travelling from Chaparmukh to Khetri after purchasing ticket. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the view that the order passed by the learned Member does not require any interference in appeal and hence the app eal is dismissed. No cost. The Railway Administration is directed to deposit the amount as awarded by the T ribunal, before the Tribunal within one month. The said amount shall be released in favour of the claimant on being duly identi fied to the satisfaction of the Registrar of the Tribunal. The Registry is directed to send down records forthwith.