The High Court
Case Details
1 M.A. No. 531 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No.531 of 2019 ------ 1. Kalomani Devi aged about 61 years, wife of late Durga Bauri 2. Suresh Bauri aged about 33 years, son of late Durga Bauri 3. Jagarnath Bauri aged about 28 years, son of late Durga Bauri 4. Sita Ram Bauri aged about 23 years, son of late Durga Bauri 5. Dinesh Bauri aged about 18 years, son of late Durga Bauri 6. Bhuwan Bauri aged about 17 years, son of late Durga Bauri Appellant no. 6 being minor is being represented through their natural guardian Appellant No.1- Kalomani Devi All residents of Village/Mohalla- Rampur-Madhopur, Post and P.S. Karmatar, Dist. Jamtara (Jharkhand) .... .... …. Appellants Versus Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Post Office and Police Station- Garden Reach, Kolkata .... .... Respondents .... For the Appellants For the U.O.I. ------ : Ms. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha, Advocate : Ms. Ruchi Mukti, Advocate : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ By the Court:- 1. 2. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Heard the parties. This miscellaneous appeal under Section 23 (1) of Railway Claims Tribunal Act is directed against the order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the Member (Technical)- Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/96/2016. The brief facts of the case on 14.05.2016 the deceased- Durga Bauri along with Munna Rajak went to Vidyasagar Railway Station. Durga Bauri was going to Jamtara from Vidyasagar. The witnesses before the Tribunal namely Munna Rajak saw the deceased- Durga Bauri purchased a 2 M.A. No. 531 of 2019 valid 2nd class ordinary ticket for travelling from Vidyasagar railway station to Jamtara railway station in presence of Munna Rajak and thereafter the deceased- Durga Bauri boarded the passenger train. There was a heavy rush in the train as a result of which Durga Barui was compelled to travel in standing position near the gate inside the bogie. The deceased- Durga Bauri accidently fell down from the said running train between K.M./Pole No. 263/26 and 263/28 due to intense jostling amongst the passengers near the gate of the bogie on account of heavy rush. Durga Bauri sustained serious injuries and died at the spot. In connection with the said death of the deceased, U.D. Case No. 23 of 2016 was registered by Rail police station Madhupur on 14.05.2016. The journey ticket was lost during the said untoward incident. 4. The respondent challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds. The respondent pleaded that the deceased was not travelling by the train of passenger rather it is the case of self-inflicted injury and the death of the deceased is not accidental fall from the running train. It is next pleaded that the deceased himself was responsible for his death and it is not a case of untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) read with Section 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989. 5. In view of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following three issues:- 3 M.A. No. 531 of 2019 (i) Whether the deceased Durga Bauri was a bonafide passenger as alleged? (ii) Whether any untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989 occurred to him while traveling by passenger train from Vidyasagar station to Jamtara station on 14.05.2016? (iii) Whether the applicants are entitled for the compensation as claimed and other relief, if any? 6. The Tribunal first considered the issue no. (i) and considered that the inquest report, FIR, and final report does not show any recovery of the journey ticket and D.R.M.’s report also shows that no journey railway ticket of the deceased was received at the spot. The learned Tribunal considered the paragraph no. 29 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 which reads as under:- “29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the Railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for compensation could be for which claim maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly.” (Emphasis supplied) and without assigning any reason observed that the issue no. (i) is decided against the applicants and as the applicants have failed to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and did not discuss the issue nos. (ii) and (iii) and dismissed the claim application. 7.
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha, learned counsel for the 4 M.A. No. 531 of 2019 appellants submits that the impugned judgment has been passed only on the basis of conjectures and surmises though no evidence has been adduced by the respondent-authorities to contest the claim of the claimants. It is next submitted by Ms. Sinha that the learned Tribunal committed a perversity by without assigning any reason came to an abrupt conclusion that the issue no. (i) is decided against the claimants. It is further submitted by Ms. Sinha that the learned Tribunal committed a gross illegality in rejecting the claim application of the appellants though the body of the deceased was recovered by the railway authority and the materials available in the record including the report of the D.R.M. clearly establishes that the death of the deceased occurred as a result of accidental fall from the running train. It is next submitted by Ms. Sinha that in view of the materials and evidence available in the record, the Tribunal ought to have come to the conclusion that the deceased fell down from the running passenger train because of heavy rush. Hence, this is a case of untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) as it is a clear case of accidental fall and in the absence of any evidence put forth by the respondent by no way, it can be said that the injury sustained by the deceased resulting in his death was a self- inflicted injury. Hence, it is submitted that since the provision of the compensation is a beneficial piece of legislation, a liberal interpretation ought to be done which is 5 M.A. No. 531 of 2019 more in consonance with the object of the act and for the benefit of the person, for whom the act was made and submits that the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal be set aside and the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- be awarded to the applicants 8. Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased- Durga Bauri was not a bona fide passenger in the facts of the case. Hence, it is submitted that this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, the sole point for determination that crop up in this appeal is:- “Whether the tribunal erred in dismissing the application for compensation and if yes, to what amount of compensation if any, the claimants are entitled to?” 10. So far as the first part of the sole point for determination as to whether the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the application for compensation is concerned, perusal of the record reveals that in the affidavit sworn by the two witnesses Kalomani Devi and Munna Rajak in shape of their examination-in-chief, both of them have stated that the deceased- Durga Bauri purchased the 2nd class ordinary journey ticket for taking of the journey from Vidyasagar railway station to Jamtara railway station and in view of the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble 6 M.A. No. 531 of 2019 Supreme Court of India in paragraph no. 29 of the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra), the same is sufficient to discharge the burden upon the claimants but this Court finds that the railways has not adduced any evidence whatsoever to suggest that the deceased was not travelling with a bona fide railway journey ticket. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Tribunal has committed a perversity by answering the issue no. (i) against the claimants without any rhyme or reason. Hence, the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of the issue no. (i) is set aside and it is held that the deceased- Durga Bauri was a bona fide passenger of the passenger train concerned. 12. Since it has been admitted in the D.R.M’s report that that the I.O. of the case has asserted that the death of the deceased was due to fall from unknown running train causing death at the spot and the said report of the I.O. is not disputed by the railway authority coupled with the unchallenged testimony of the two witnesses examined in this case by the claimants that the deceased purchased the journey ticket and boarded the passenger train. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the evidence in the record suggests that the deceased- Durga Bauri died because of untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989. So this answers the 7 M.A. No. 531 of 2019 first part of the sole point for determination. 13. Now coming to the second part of the sole point for determination with respect to the quantum of compensation is concerned, in view of the notification dated 22.12.2016 with effect from 01.01.2017, Rule 3(2) of the railway accident and untoward incident compensation Rule 1990, the words Rs. 4,00,000/- has been substituted with the words Rs. 8,00,000/-. 14. Since the occurrence of accident took place on 14.05.2016 i.e. prior to 01.01.2017, relying upon the paragraph no.19 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra) which reads as under:- “19. Accordingly, we conclude that compensation will be payable as applicable on the date of the accident with interest as may be considered reasonable from time to time on the same pattern as in accident claim cases. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled to higher of the two amounts. This order will not affect the awards which have already become final and where limitation for challenging such awards has expired, this order will not by itself be a ground for condonation of delay. Seeming conflict in Rathi Menon (supra) and Kalandi Charan Sahoo (supra) stands explained accordingly. The 4-Judge Bench judgment in Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra) holds the field on the subject and squarely situation. Compensation as applicable on the date of the accident has to be given with reasonable interest and to give effect to the mandate of beneficial legislation, if compensation as provided on the date of award of the Tribunal is higher than unrevised amount with interest, the higher of the two amounts has to be given.” the present applies to 8 M.A. No. 531 of 2019 15. This Court is of the considered view that since Rs.8,00,000/- is more than Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest. Hence, the claimants will be entitled to the higher of the two amounts i.e. Rs.8,00,000/-. So this Court is of the considered view that the claimants will be entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- only. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the Member (Technical)- Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/96/2016 is set aside and the claim application vide OA (IIU)/RNC/96/2016 is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The respondent is directed to pay Rs.8,00,000/- to the claimants within four months from the date of this judgment. In the result, this appeal is allowed on contest but under the circumstances without any costs. Let a copy of this Judgment along with the Lower Court Record be sent back to the learned Tribunal forthwith. 16. 17. 18. 19. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 27th June, 2023 AFR/ Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)