Patna High Court - Orders
Sonapati Devi @ Sonamati Devi vs The Union Of India Through The on 25 June, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar
Bench: Rakesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.810 of 2011
======================================================
Sonapati Devi @ Sonamati Devi W/O Late Sarvjeet Yadav R/O Village
Chamarpur, P.O. Chamarpur, P.S. Shahpur, Distt.-Bhojpur
.... .... Applicant/Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India Through The General Manager, Eastern Railway, 3-
Koelaghat Street, Kolkata
.... .... Respondent/ Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Mohan Murari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
CAV ORDER
5 25-06-2012The present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has been preferred against an order dated 27.7.2011, passed in Case No. OA 000210 of 2001, by Sri Santosh Kumar Sinha, learned Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, (hereinafter referred to as the "Claims Tribunal"), whereby, the learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimant had failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.
Short fact of the case is that after the death of husband of the appellant due to fall from a running train an application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, was filed on 19.11.2001, before the Claims Tribunal by the sole 2 Patna High Court MA No.810 of 2011 (5) dt.25-06-2012 2 / 12 appellant disclosing therein that on 18.9.2001 her husband, Sarvjeet Yadav, while coming from New Delhi Junction to Patna Junction through 5622 Dn North East Express as bona fide passenger due to fall received injuries and died. It was pleaded that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he was a Military personnel. In the said accident his one suit case and a bedding were also lost. A compensation of Rs. 4,00000/- was claimed by the appellant. Besides filing application for claim in prescribed proforma before the Claims Tribunal, affidavit duly sworn by the claimant / appellant as well as affidavit of one another witness was filed before the learned Claims Tribunal. The claimant / appellant had asserted that she was widow of the deceased. Her husband was a Military personnel and going to report to Headquarter at Danapur Cantt. and on 18.9.2001 he was travelling from New Delhi to Patna through train no. 5622 Dn North East Express. He was a bona fide passenger of the said train and his ticket / warrant was lost during the accident. The husband of the appellant fell down near the Eastern Outer Signal of Ara Railway Station from a high speed running train. In the said accident he received grievous injuries. She was given news by the GRP, Ara. Her husband was sent to Sadar Hospital, Ara, where Doctor referred him to the Military Hospital, Danapur, for better 3 Patna High Court MA No.810 of 2011 (5) dt.25-06-2012 3 / 12 treatment. So he was kept in an Ambulance and was sent to Danapur, but after a short while, he succumbed to his injuries. Thereafter, body of deceased was brought back to Ara Sadar Hospital and after performing legal formalities the dead body was handed over to the family members of the appellant on the same day. The appellant further asserted that the deceased husband left behind him the appellant as widow and three minor children. Along with the claim application the appellant had brought on record her own affidavit, affidavit of Vikash Yadav, copy of fardbeyan, copy of final report, copy of inquest report, newspaper cutting, copy of Post-Mortem Examination Report, dependency certificate, certificate issued by the concerned Mukhiya, document for identification of the deceased, residential certificate, identification certificate of the appellant, document of pension paper and copy of voter list, which were marked as Exhibits - A1 to A14 Series respectively. In the case before the learned Claims Tribunal the Respondent / Eastern Railway, appeared and filed a written statement. Besides filing written statement no material was brought on record on behalf of the Respondent / Eastern Railway to refute the claim of the appellant. The learned Claims Tribunal had framed following issues for adjudication. These are:-
1) Whether the claim petition was maintainable?4 Patna High Court MA No.810 of 2011 (5) dt.25-06-2012
4 / 12
2) Whether on 18.9.2001 the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train no. 5622 Dn North East Express?
3) Whether the claim case was within the ambit of untoward incidence under Section 123(C) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989?; and
4) Whether the applicant / dependents were entitled to get compensation amount, if entitled, up to what extent?
Before the learned Claims Tribunal two witnesses were examined. Those were appellant who was examined as AW-1 and one Vikash Yadav, was examined as AW-2. Besides oral evidence the claimant had brought on record number of documentary evidences which have been referred hereinabove. Though there were sufficient materials on record to allow the claim petition, the learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition considering the fact that the claimant had not established that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. However, learned Claims Tribunal has come to the conclusion that it was a case of untoward incidence under Section 123 (C)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
Sri Krishna Mohan Murari, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that despite the fact that there were sufficient materials on record that deceased being an Army 5 Patna High Court MA No.810 of 2011 (5) dt.25-06-2012 5 / 12 personnel was coming from New Delhi to report at Danapur Cantt. through Railway warrant and accidentally he fell down from running North East Express near Ara Railway Station, and subsequently, died, the learned Claims Tribunal, ironically, has dismissed the claim petition only on the ground that from the possession of the deceased neither valid Railway ticket nor Railway warrant was recovered and on the said ground the claim petition was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken the court to number of documents which were brought before the learned Claims Tribunal. He firstly refers to the copy of written information given by Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Ara, to Officer-In-Charge, Railway Police Station, Ara, which has been marked as Exhibit A3. From Exhibit A3 it is evident that the informant i.e. ASI Sri Mahesh Prasad, was informed by the Station Master, Ara Railway Police Station, regarding the fact that one passenger had fallen down from train no. 5622 Dn North East Express and is lying near Eastern Cabin in injured condition. Thereafter, he rushed to the spot and carried the injured on a stretcher to Sadar Hospital, Ara, where after giving First Aid, the In-charge Medical Officer, referred the injured to Army Hospital, Danapur, where after, the injured was loaded on an Ambulance and moved for Danapur but 6 Patna High Court MA No.810 of 2011 (5) dt.25-06-2012 6 / 12 immediately thereafter, the Compounder disclosed that the injured had already died. Thereafter, the dead body was sent to Ara Sadar Hospital for Post Mortem Examination. Learned counsel for the appellant has further referred to Exhibit A4 i.e. Final Report in Ara Railway Station UD Case No. 19 of 2001. It was submitted that Exhibit A4 also corroborates the fact that deceased had fallen from running Dn North East Express near Ara Railway Station. The fact that deceased had died due to injury sustained on fall from running train was corroborated from the Post-Mortem Examination Report i.e. Exhibit A7. It was submitted that it is true that in inquest report i.e. Exhibit A5 in column no. 7 though recovery of full pant, under garment and identity card of deceased was mentioned, the recovery of Railway warrant was not mentioned. But fact remains that only non-recovery of Railway ticket or Railway warrant from possession of the deceased was not sufficient to reject the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. It was argued that once it was established that deceased being Army personnel had fallen down from a running train, then even in absence of recovery of any Railway ticket or Railway warrant it can be presumed that deceased was a bona fide passenger. He submits that unless it was established by the Respondent / Railway that deceased was not a bona fide 7 Patna High Court MA No.810 of 2011 (5) dt.25-06-2012 7 / 12 passenger, only on the basis of absence of Railway ticket or Railway warrant, the claim petition was not required to be rejected. He submits that this issue has already been settled by number of decisions. He has specifically relied on a Division Bench judgment of this court reported in 2008(3) PLJR 711 (Smt. Kaushalaya Devi & Ors. vs. Union of India Thr. General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, U.P.) in which even in absence of production of Railway ticket the claim was allowed, which was assailed by the Railways before this court and a Division Bench of this court has rejected the appeal imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the Railways. He has specifically referred paragraph no. 5 of the judgment, which is required to be quoted hereinbelow: -
"5. Railways Act provides prosecution of persons entering Railway Stations without valid journey ticket or platform ticket. That makes it abundantly clear that without a ticket, either for undertaking a journey or for the purpose of visiting the platform, no one is entitle to be within the precincts of a Railway Station. That the person was in the precincts of the Railway Station would, therefore, logically have a presumption that he had a ticket for him. That he did not have a ticket was obligatory on the part of the Railway Administration to prove. The Railway Administration could bring on record of the claim case necessary circumstances, which would lead to a conclusion that the person concerned was a ticketless traveller or a ticketless wanderer. In the instant case, if the 8 Patna High Court MA No.810 of 2011 (5) dt.25-06-2012
8 / 12 Inquest Report had indicated the contents of the pocket of the shirt and of the pair of trousers of the deceased or the persons, who conducted the inquest, had come and deposed, a circumstance could be created for a person to believe that the deceased was a ticketless traveller, but no such step having been taken, it is surprising that the Railway Administration was advised to prefer an appeal against the award and thereby waste further public time, energy and money."
On the aforesaid ground it has been prayed to set aside the impugned order, allow the appeal and direct the Respondent to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 4,00000/- along with interest from the date of filing of the claim application, which was filed on 19.11.2001.
Sri Anil Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent / Union of India through General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata, has vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant. He submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition and similarly the appeal is also liable to be rejected. He submits that since deceased was not having any Railway ticket or Railway warrant, it was not mentioned in column no. 7 of the inquest report. He submits that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. He further submits that had it been a case where the deceased was having a Railway warrant, the claimant could have 9 Patna High Court MA No.810 of 2011 (5) dt.25-06-2012 9 / 12 taken steps to examine certain Officials of the Army to at least bring on record the fact that Railway warrant was issued in favour of the deceased for travelling on the fateful day. In absence of any such material the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petition. Sri Singh, has further argued that learned Claims Tribunal has also doubted the identity of the claimant / appellant. It was argued that initially in the claim application the appellant had disclosed her name as Sonapati Devi, but at subsequent stage, she had come out with a case that she was actually Sonamati Devi with alias name as Sonapati Devi. This created serious doubt in the mind of the learned Claims Tribunal, and as such, the learned Claims Tribunal besides holding that deceased was not a bona fide passenger had also raised serious doubt on the identity of the appellant. According to Sri Anil Singh, learned counsel for Respondent, the learned Claims Tribunal after discussing each and every material has rightly dismissed the claim petition by order dated 27.7.2011 which requires no interference.
Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. The fact that deceased was an Army personnel is not in dispute. Similarly, it is also not in dispute that deceased died due to fall from running North East Express having train no. 5622 Dn which is evident 10 Patna High Court MA No.810 of 2011 (5) dt.25-06-2012 10 / 12 from Exhibits A3, A4 & A5. The Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Ara, who had given written report to the Officer-In-Charge, Railway Police Station, Ara, makes it clear that deceased had fallen from the said train on 18.9.2001 which was recorded in Station Diary on 18.9.2001 at 21.55 Hrs., and thereafter, a UD Case No. 19 of 2001 was registered. The same fact was corroborated in the Final Report i.e. Exhibit A4. Once it was established that deceased was travelling on the said train and he had fallen accidentally near Ara Railway Station, there was no reason for coming to a conclusion that deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Without wasting any time this court would like to only rely on paragraph no. 5 of the Division Bench judgment of this court in Kaushalaya Devi Case (Supra), which has been quoted above. The documents i.e. Exhibits A8 to A14 are sufficient to prove that the learned Claims Tribunal has unnecessarily raised doubt on the identity of the appellant. It is true that in claim application which was initially filed the claimant's name was indicated as Sonapati Devi, but subsequently, an amendment petition was filed for making correction and amending the name as Sonapati Devi @ Sonamati Devi. On the basis of documents brought on record, the court is of the opinion that there was nothing to raise any doubt regarding 11 Patna High Court MA No.810 of 2011 (5) dt.25-06-2012 11 / 12 the identity of the appellant. The deceased was an Army personnel, which is evident from inquest report i.e. Exhibit A5. Despite the fact that applicant has brought on record number of documents the Respondent had filed only a vague written statement. The Respondent / Railway had not bothered to bring on record any other document or evidence to prove that deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The claimant had asserted that the documents which were brought on record makes it clear that deceased being a bona fide passenger had fallen down from the running train. Even at the time of cross-examination of claimant nothing could be extracted by the Railways to raise doubt on the case of claimant.
In view of the facts and circumstances as well as materials available on record, the court is satisfied that the learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously and in cryptic manner has dismissed the claim petition. Accordingly, the order dated 27.7.2011, passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. OA 000210 of 2001, is hereby set aside and the appeal stands allowed with a direction to the Respondent to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 4,00000/- as claimed by the appellant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the learned 12 Patna High Court MA No.810 of 2011 (5) dt.25-06-2012 12 / 12 Claims Tribunal i.e. 19.11.2001, till the date of its payment. The Respondent is directed to pay the compensation amount along with interest to the claimant within a period of two months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order.
The appeal stands allowed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/-