Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Beena Bhattacharya vs Railway on 12 October, 2018
-1- OA/050/00090/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
OA/050/00090/2018
Reserved on : 26/09/2018
Pronounced on : 12/10/2018
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JAYESH V. BHAIRAVIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Beena Bhattacharya, wife of Late Soumendu Bhattacharya, Resident of
B.B. Ganj, Near Gate No. 2, Muzaffarpur, Pin Code- 842001 (Bihar).
..... Applicant.
- By Advocate: - Mr. M.P. Dixit
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, PO- Digghi Kala, PS- Hajipur, District- Vaishali at
Hajipur, Pin Code- 844101 (Bihar).
2. The General Manager (Personnel), East Central Railway, Hajipur,
PO- Digghi Kalan, PS- Hajipur, District- Vaishali at Hajipur, Pin Code-
844101 (Bihar).
3. The Chief Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, PO-
Digghi Kalan, PS- Hajipur, District- Vaishali at Hajipur, Pin Code-
844101 (Bihar).
4. The Financial Advisor & Chief Accounbts Officer, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, PO- Digghi Kalan, PS- Hajipur, Pin Code- 844101
(Bihar).
5. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Sonepur, PO-
Sonepur, PS- Sonepur, District- Saran, Pin Code- 841101 (Bihar).
6. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Sonepur, PO- Sonepur, PS- Sonepur, District- Saran, Pin Code-
841101 (Bihar).
7. The Senior Divisional Engineer (Coordination), East Central Railway
Sonepur, PO- Sonepur, PS- Sonepur, District- Saran, Pin Code-
841101.
8. The Senior Divisional Financial Manager, East Central Railway,
Sonepur, PO- Sonepur, PS- Sonepur, District- Saran, Pin Code-
841101 (Bihar).
...... Respondents.
- By Advocate(s) : - Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey
-2- OA/050/00090/2018
ORDER
J.V. Bhairavia, J.M: - in the instant OA aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14.11.2017 ( Annexure A/6) issued by respondent no. 6, whereby the claim of the applicant for compensation/Ex-gratia payment on account of death of deceased employee who fell down during course of his duty in the presence of higher officials, the applicant has filed this OA.
2. The brief facts of the present case is as follows:-
2.1 The husband of the applicant Late Soumendu Bhattacharya was posted as Senior Section Engineer (Works/Planning), East Central Railway, Sonepur. On 15.06.2016 he was deputed at Gauchhari for the CRS inspection along with other staff. During measurement of Gauchhari Yard he fell down of the ground and died during the treatment. His post mortem was performed at Sadar Hospital, Begusarai and in the post mortem report it is stated that the cause of death was Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack).
2.2 It is contended that the applicant had lodged an FIR on the same very date, i.e.15.06.2016 before the GRP wherein the applicant had narrated the details of accident and injury caused to her husband (Annexure-A/4 refers).
2.3 It is also contended by the applicant that she had submitted an application dated 09.08.2017 for payment of ex-gratia compensation (Annexure- A/5 refers).
-3- OA/050/00090/2018 2.4 The applicant had submitted another application dated
14.08.2017. In response to the said application, the respondents vide letter dated 14.11.2017 informed the applicant that after thorough enquiry and also considering the post mortem report the cause of death was heart attack. Therefore, under the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act, no compensation is payable (Annexure A/6 refers).
3. The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submitted that the husband of the applicant was on duty when accident took place and due to injury the Railway employee died. It is further contended that the respondents had constituted a Three Member Committee to enquire about the untoward incident and the said Committee had submitted its joint enquiry report. According to the said report, the husband of the applicant on 15.06.2016 during CRS inspection fell down on rail track and due to that he sustained serious injury. He was hospitalized and there he was declared dead It is stated that the said report that death occurred during the performance of railway duty (Annexure R/3 and R/4).
4. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the reasons stated by the respondents in denying the claim of the applicant are contrary to the materials on record. There is sufficient evidence that the death took place due to accident on railway track while the employee was on duty. However, the respondents have treated the case of the applicant in an inhuman manner. The learned counsel further submitted that in some cases
-4- OA/050/00090/2018 even on inferior footing this Tribunal had granted the benefit of compensation. He placed reliance on the orders passed by this Tribunal in OA 877/2015 decided on 18.01.2018, OA 820/2016 decided on 28.08.2017 and OA776/2018 decided on 20.09.2018 and claimed that she is entitled to receive ex-gratia compensation.
5. On the other hand, the respondents have denied the contention of the applicant. At the outset they have contended that there is no dispute about death of husband of the applicant which took place on 15.06.2016 due to heart attack at the time he was deputed at Gauchhari for the CRS inspection along with other staff. In the post mortem report, the medical officer mentioned that the cause of death was Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) (Annexure A/2 and A/3 refers). It is further contended that as per provision of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 Section 3(1) " If personal injury is caused to a workman by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation". In this regard, it is vehemently submitted that Late Soumendu Bhattacharya was not a workman as per definition of Workman in Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. The death was not due to any accident. Thus, the applicant is not liable for payment of employees compensation as per rule. The prescribed inquiry in the post mortem report also indicate that the injury was due to the full was not severe rather it was a biological condition of heart attack that caused death of the applicant's husband. The Joint Committee report has only stated that Late Soumendu Bhattacharya lost his
-5- OA/050/00090/2018 balance and fell down on the railway track and sustained some injury. It is not the finding of the said report that the death took place due to any injury. The Superintendent of Sadar Hospital, Mugalsarai had issued the medical certificate wherein it is categorically stated that the death of Soumendu Bhattacharya caused due to heart attack. It is further stated that the injury (Bruise, C.L.W, and Abrasion) was found to be minor. Due to the said injury death cannot be possible and therefore this is not a case of accident and the respondents being employer has no liability for any compensation (Annexure R/5 refers).
6. The learned counsel for the respondents further stated that as per the provision of Workmen Compensation Act, the applicant is not entitled to receive any ex-gratia compensations as prayed for. In view of all these facts, the respondents had no other option except to reject the claim of the applicant. Accordingly, vide letter dated 14.11.2017 the applicant was intimated that her case is not admissible.
7. Heard the parties and perused the materials on record.
8. It is not in dispute that the husband of the applicant while on duty at Gauchhari for the CRS inspection along with other staff on 15.06.2016 suddenly lost his balance and fell down on the railway track. According to the post mortem report the cause of death has been stated as Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack). According to the applicant since the applicant was on duty and death took place during the course of employment under the respondents
-6- OA/050/00090/2018 therefore he is entitled to receive ex-gratia compensation. However, the respondents have denied the claim of the applicant on the ground that the death was not caused due to any accident but it was due to heart attack. Therefore, the question arises whether the death of the late employee occurred due to injury sustained on being fell down during employment and whether the applicant is entitled to claim any ex-gratia compensation.
9. It is noticed that as per the post mortem report the cause of death was due to heart attack. It is further noticed that the competent medical authority had also clarified that injury sustained was minor and said injury cannot lead to death. Therefore, it can be safely presumed that the cause of death was due to heart attack and not due to any injury. In the case of death caused by accident the burden of proof rests upon the workman to prove that the accident arose out of employment as well as in the course of employment. Considering the materials on record there is nothing on record to reveal that the husband of the applicant had died due to any injury caused to him when he fell on the railway track. It is also required to note that the expression "accident" means untoward mishap which is not expected or designed (designed by sufferer). In the present case it is noticed that the applicant has lost his balance and fell down on railway track and succumbed to death. There is no material on record which can be said that the applicant fell down on railway track because of stress and strain due to work allotted to the applicant. In
-7- OA/050/00090/2018 fact, deceased railway employee was working as Senior Section Engineer (Works/Planning).
10. The respondents had contended that the said late railway employee was not a workman. The said contention has not been rebutted by the applicant. Therefore, also the claim for compensation was not considered by the respondents.
11. However, the respondents have relied upon the provision of Section 3(1) of the Workmen Compensation Act which states that "If personal injury is caused to a workman by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation". But in the present case it cannot be said that the death of ex-employee occurred due to injury in course of employment. The judgments relied upon by the applicant are based on separate facts and circumstances of each case. However, it is noticed that in OA 820 of 2016 decided on 28.08.2017 "the deceased railway employee, namely, Ram Nandan Ray died on 19.06.2015 at the Washing Pit No. 1 at Barauni when he fell on the railway track and was crushed by the train. The claim for compensation was rejected on the ground that the said employee was not assigned to work at Pit No. 1. Considering the said fact, this Tribunal had observed that since the death has taken place admittedly during the duty hours and in the railway yard, even if there are some grey areas and unexplained reasons why he was at place B and not place A, in such a tragic case the Railways as a model public employer are expected to take a sympathetic view since the
-8- OA/050/00090/2018 deceased employee deemed to have died in accident in the course of discharge of his duty. Accordingly, the respondents were directed to release ex-gratia compensation amount to the applicant." In the present case, it is difficult to arrive at the conclusion that the applicant died due to an accident while discharging his official duty though it is not in dispute that the deceased railway employee fell down on the railway track when he was on duty but he died due to heart attack. Therefore, the judgment/order relied by the applicant is quite distinguishable. Hence, it is not applicable to the facts and circumstances in the present case. However, positive inference can be drawn to consider the case for lump sum compensation.
12. In view of the above, there is no infirmity in the decision dated 14.11.2017 whereby the respondents have not found it proper to pay compensation to the applicant under the Worksmen Compensation Act. However, since it is noticed that the applicant was on duty and admittedly he died while on duty, it is open for the respondents to extend welfare benefits under the welfare scheme for the dependent of the deceased employee who died in harness by way of lump sum ex-gratia compensation to the family members, if permissible under the welfare scheme of the respondents . The OA is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[Jayesh V. Bhairavia] Judicial Member srk