Jharkhand High Court
Ambika Devi & Ors vs Union Of India Thr. G.M.,South on 13 November, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No.13 of 2011
1.Ambika Devi
2. Akanchha Kumari
3. Kuldip Lahiri ...... Appellants Versus
1. Union of India, through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Bilaspur
2. General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. UPADHYAY For the Appellants : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ram Nivas Roy, Advocate 05/ 13.11.2013 This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 15.12.2010, passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in connection with Case No.OA(IIU)/RNC/2010/0100, corresponding to Old No.OU70058/07 whereby the claim made by the appellants has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the claim application is that Sarita Lahiri, who was travelling by an express train on 12.06.2006, had fallen from the running train due to sudden jerk and the occurrence took place at Dohranloa (K.M. No.947/9.11). Father of appellant Nos.2 and 3 also died due to shock after receiving death news of his wife and therefore two minor children i.e. appellant No.2 and 3, being represented through their grand mother appellant No.1, have filed application for grant of compensation.
3. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error by holding that the injuries sustained to the deceased were appearing to be selfinflicted and she herself was responsible for her death. The Tribunal has gone to the extent of observing that the deceased might have been standing at the edge of the compartment by stretching her body out and injuries were caused due to dashing of her head with the pole. Surprisingly enough, the respondent has not adduced any evidence to this effect and therefore the Tribunal had no occasion to observe such fact in the impugned judgment.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the argument and submitted that the deceased herself was responsible for the injuries and therefore the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition.
5. I have gone through the impugned judgment and I find that the reasoning for dismissing the claim application is unwarranted and not supported by any evidence on record. The deceased was travelling in a train is not disputed and the death occurred in course of that.
2.6. In the circumstances stated above, appellant No.2 and 3 are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.4,00,000/ (rupees four lacs) as compensation against death of their mother as per Rule 3 & Rule 4, PartI of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990.
7. Accordingly, respondents are directed to pay said sum of Rs.4,00,000/ (rupees four lacs) to be distributed equally in favour of appellant Nos.2 and 3 and the amount so paid shall be put in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank till the respective appellants attain majority. Appellant No.1, the grand mother shall be entitled to withdraw only the interest paid on the fixed deposit for the purpose of meeting out expenses occurring on appellant Nos.2 and 3. It is made clear that appellant Nos.2 and 3 shall be entitled to withdraw the amount after attaining majority.
8. In the result, the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2010, passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in connection with Case No.OA(IIU)/RNC/2010/0100, corresponding to Old No.OU70058/07 is set aside and the appeal stands allowed.
(D. N. Upadhyay, J.) NKC