(From the judgment dated 28th June 2022 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar v. Union of India and Another
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.378 of 2022 (From the judgment dated 28th June 2022 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in Case No. OA(IIU)/226/2017) Soudamini Rout & Ors. …… Appellants Versus Union of India and Another ….… Respondents Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Appellants For Respondents : :
Legal Reasoning
Ms.D.Mohapatra, Advocate Ms.S.Sahoo, Advocate (for Union of India) CORAM : JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 21st February, 2023 B.P.Routray, J. 1. Heard Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Appellant and Ms. Sahoo, learned counsel for Respondent-Union of India. 2. Present appeal by the Claimants is directed against judgment dated 28th June 2022 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, in Case No. OA(IIU)/226/2017, wherein the Tribunal has refused to grant any compensation by disbelieving the case of the Claimants. 3. The facts as alleged by the Claimants in the claim application, are to the effect that, the deceased namely, Page 1 of 5 Baidyanath Rout while travelled in LLT-BBS express on 26th November, 2012 from Kurla to Cuttack died on the way by fall from running train. 4. The admitted facts as reveal from record are that, the dead body of the deceased was first noticed by the on duty trackman at 6.00 hours on 26th November, 2012 laying in a drain near the track at KM No. 87/3-4 (near engineering level crossing gate) between Bamur and Sargipalli railway station. Station dairy No.3394 dated 26th November, 2012 was entered, the inquest was held and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem examination was conducted at 2.30 P.M. on 26th November, 2012 and in the opinion of autopsy doctor, the death occurred within 12 to 24 hours from the time of post-mortem examination. 5. The Tribunal disbelieved the case of the Applicants inter-alia on the ground that as per opinion of the autopsy doctor if the death took place between 2.30 P.M. on 25th to 2.30 A.M. on 26th November 2012 and the LTT-BBS express did not pass through Bamur on 26th November 2012, then the claim of the Applicants regarding death of the deceased by fall from LTT- BBS express is failed. 6. It is seen that two witnesses viz. A.W.1 & A.W.2 were examined from the side of the Claimants and no witness from the side of the railways were examined. But the copies of DRM’s report along with station diary entry, FIR, inquest report, post- mortem report etc were adduced in evidence by the railways. 7. Perusal of evidence of A.W.2 reveals that he is the nephew of the deceased and travelling along with him in the train concerned at that relevant time. A.W.2 and the deceased were Page 2 of 5 working at Mumbai and on 24th November, 2012 they boarded train from Kurla the reached at Bhubaneswar on 25th November 2012 at 7.45 A.M. As per (Mumbai). The train records of railway, train No.12879 (LTT-BBS express) crossed Bamur station at 3.52 hours on 25th November, 2012. If the opinion recorded in the post-mortem report is accepted, then the death happened after 2.30 P.M. on 25th November, 2012. According to the post-mortem report the cause of death is due to injury to lungs leading to asphyxia. There is no mention of instantaneous death in the post-mortem report and according to the autopsy doctor the injuries are most likely due to fall from running train. The dead body was lying in the drain near the railway track for considerable period and the nature of injuries noticed on the dead body suggest in favour of his prolonged death inside the drain. In other words, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, there is every possibility that the deceased might have died after 2.30 P.M. on 25th November 2012. Therefore, what is concluded by the Tribunal to doubt the death of deceased due to fall from the running train is without merit. In the circumstances it is possible that the deceased struggled for life for a long time lying inside the drain alone. 8. It is true that no journey ticket was found from possession of the dead body, though it is the consistent case of the Claimants that the deceased had purchased the ticket in the reserved berth during his journey. Here Ms.Sahoo submits on behalf of the railways that since the claim application was filed four years after the alleged accident, no journey ticket from the reservation chart could therefore be ascertained by the railways. It is seen that the delay in filing the claim application has been duly Page 3 of 5 condoned by the Tribunal and no challenge has been advanced by the railways to the same. The most astonishing fact is noticed that, despite registration of station diary entry No.3394 dated 26th November, 2012 by the Station Master of Bamur Railway Station, the DRM’s report was prepared only on 4th August, 2016 i.e. after filing of the claim application. It needs to be mentioned here that as per The Railway Passenger (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, the DRM and other authorities are required to submit the report without delay on reporting of an untoward incident. Therefore, blame cannot be attributed to the claimants alone and Railways have also faulted on their part. As such, the contention of the Claimants cannot be nullified for mere absence of the journey ticket in respect of travelling of the deceased in the concerned train. 9. In view the discussions made above and taking note of the circumstances regarding death and laying of the dead body near the railway track, it can safely be concluded that the Claimants have successfully established their case regarding death of the deceased due to fall from the running train on 25th November, 2012. Accordingly, the Claimants being the widow and children of the deceased are found entitled for compensation as per the schedule. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the Respondent- Union of India is directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, or Rs.8,00,000/-, whichever is higher, within a period of four months from today, which shall be disbursed in favour of the Claimants–Appellants in equal proportion by keeping Page 4 of 5 50% of the share fall due to each of the Claimants in fixed deposits in any nationalized bank separately for a period of 5 years. 11. The copies of the documents and evidences produced by Ms. Mohapatra in course of hearing are kept on record. 12. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ( B.P. Routray) Judge S.Das Page 5 of 5