Bombay High Court
Kamini Wd/O Amol Dusane And Others vs Union Of India, Through The General ... on 31 January, 2020
Author: M. G. Giratkar
Bench: M. G. Giratkar
fa 1532.2019 judgment.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1532 OF 2019
1. Kamini Wd/o Amol Dusane,
Aged 27 years, Occu. Household,
2. Ku. Neha D/o Amol Dusane,
Aged 4 years, Occu. Student,
3. Raghunath S/o Prabhakar Dusane,
Aged 58 years, Occu. Labour,
4. Usha W/o Prabhakar Dusane,
Aged 53 years, Occu. Housewife,
All R/o Narayanwadi, Hirapur
Road, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon ..... Appellants
.....Vs.....
Union of India,
Through the General Manager,
Central Railway, C.S.T. Mumbai ..... Respondent
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Ravindra G. Bagul, Advocate for the appellants,
Shri Z.S. Shekhani, Advocate for respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------------
CORAM : M. G. GIRATKAR, J.
Date : 30/01/2020
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned Advocate Shri Ravindra G. Bagul for the appellants. He has submitted that the deceased was travelling as a bonafide passenger. The ticket was not found with the dead body that cannot be a ground to deny the claim of appellants.
::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2020 23:46:52 :::
fa 1532.2019 judgment.odt 2
2. Learned Advocate Shri Z.S. Shekhani strongly supports the impugned judgment and submitted that he was not a bonafide passenger. Therefore, claim is rightly rejected by the Tribunal.
3. Deceased-Amol Prabhakar Dusane was travelling from Jalgaon to Chalisgaon in train on 28.11.2013 by purchasing valid train ticket. There was heavy rush in the general bogie of the train. Deceased was standing near the door of the train. When train was in between Waghali to Chalisgaon, due to strong jerk deceased fell down from running train and died on the spot. Deceased was crushed under the wheels of the train.
4. Government Railway Police conducted the panchanama etc. and after investigation submitted investigation report. The appellants filed claim before the Claim Tribunal. The Claim Tribunal rejected the claim on the ground that deceased was not bonafide passenger as defined under Section 124 of the Indian Railway Act.
5. Learned Advocate Shri Bagul has pointed out the investigation report and other documents and submitted that as per the investigation report, deceased was travelling in the train. He fell down from the running train. Deceased was crushed under the wheels of the train and died due to the untoward accident. Learned Advocate has pointed out the judgment of ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2020 23:46:52 ::: fa 1532.2019 judgment.odt 3 Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in AIR 2018 SC 2362.
6. From the documents filed on record by the Railway, it is clear that the deceased was travelling in a train. As per the investigation report dated 10th March, 2015, deceased was travelling in a train. He fell down from the running train. He was crushed under the wheels. Two pieces of the body were found on the spot. As per the death summary report, deceased was travelling in a train. He fell down from the train. He came under the wheels and died.
7. From the perusal of impugned judgment, the Claim Tribunal rejected the claim on the ground that the deceased was not having any valid train ticket and, therefore, railway is not responsible to pay any compensation. In the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in AIR 2018 SC 2362, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in para 17.4 that:
"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 which claim for compensation could be 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 ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2020 23:46:52 ::: fa 1532.2019 judgment.odt 4 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".
8. The claim can not be rejected only on the ground that deceased was not having a ticket. That itself will not negate the claim that he was bonafide passenger. Initially burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filling an affidavit of relevant fact. In the present case, the appellant has filed affidavit. She has stated in her affidavit that the deceased purchased valid journey ticket for Jalgaon to Chalisgaon. He was travelling in the train. This affidavit is not controverted by the Railway. There is no any counter affidavit. On the other hand, written statement filed by the respondent, itself shows that deceased was travelling in a train. He was standing near the door of the coach and due to the jerk he fell down and died. Therefore, it is clear that deceased was travelling in a train. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in AIR 2018 SC 2362, mere absence of ticket can not negate the claim.
9. Hence appeal is allowed.
::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2020 23:46:52 :::
fa 1532.2019 judgment.odt 5
10. The impugned judgment is hereby quashed and set aside.
11. The respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- within a period of 3 months.
12. Appellant nos. 1, 2 and 4 are permitted to withdraw the amount of compensation in equal share.
JUDGE C.R. Khobragade ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2020 23:46:52 :::