Jharkhand High Court
Smt Archana Verma vs Union Of India Through General Manager ... on 15 September, 2015
Author: D.N.Upadhyay
Bench: D.N.Upadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A.No. 323 of 2013
Smt. Archna Verma. ... ...Appellant
-Versus-
Union of India through General Manager,
South Eastern Railway, Kolkata (W.B.). ... ...Respondent
---------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY
For the Appellant: Mrs. Chaitali Chatterjee, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate.
---------
05/15.09.2015This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 21.08.2013 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in connection with Case No. OA(IIU)/RNC/2010/0115 (Old Case No. OA (IIU)-8027/08 whereby application for grant of compensation filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
2. The claimant/appellant has made out a case that her husband Arun Verma, who was posted as Network Engineer in U.T.L., Doranda, in course of going to Bokaro from Hatia had fallen from running train on 17.08.2007, sustained injury and died. In this connection U.D. Case No. 34/2007 on the basis of information lodged by Damodar Reddy was registered. Inquest report was prepared, postmortem was done and after conducting investigation G.R.P.S. submitted final form.
3. It is contended that the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimant have clearly submitted that deceased Arun Verma after purchasing ticket for going to Bokaro from Hatia boarded in Train No. 8626. Due to heavy rush in the compartment, he fell down in between Hatia and Ranchi and died due to injury sustained.
4. The respondent-Railway filed written statement on 08.12.2010 denying the liability and contended that no untoward incident on 17.08.2007 had taken place due to running of Train No.8626. The driver and guard of the said train did not report the incident. It might be a case of run over and for that the respondent- Railway could not be held liable. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues for just decision of the case:-
i. Was the death of Arun Verma due to fall from a running train ?
ii. Was the death caused in an untoward incident ? iii. Relief ?
and held that no such incident ever took place due to running of Train No. 8626 and the deceased was not bona fide passenger.2.
5. Counsel appearing for the appellant has challenged the findings of the Tribunal on the ground that contradictory statement has been given by the driver and the guard of the train. Final report submitted by G.R.P. speaks about falling of a person from Train No. 8626. Witnesses including the claimant have categorically stated that the deceased was going to attend the marriage and for that he had boarded in the aforesaid train on 17.08.2007. The ticket might have been misplaced during removal of dead body from the railway track to G.R.P.S.
6. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the deceased was working as Network Engineer in the firm known as U.T.L., Doranda and informant Damodar Reddy happened to be his immediate Boss because he was the Manager in the Branch. The person with whom the deceased was residing or the Manager Damodar Reddy under whom the deceased was working, have never said at the time of lodging information that the deceased had taken leave for going to Bokaro to attend the marriage. The story of going to Bokaro from Hatia for attending a marriage is after thought and that has been developed during pendency of investigation and claim application. No valid ticket has been detected from possession of the deceased nor any of the passenger travelling with the deceased had supported the incident. The guard and the driver of the train had not noticed any such untoward incident.
7. I have gone through the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and the lower court record. Admittedly, person with whom the deceased was residing or the informant Damodar Reddy under whom the deceased was working had never stated at the time of institution of U.D. Case that the deceased had taken leave and he was going to attend a marriage at Bokaro rather they were searching the deceased when he did not return home after attending his duty on 16.08.2007. On the next day when the deceased did not attend his office, further search was made and then it was detected that one person had died and dead body is lying on the railway track between Haria and Ranchi railway station. The informant and other witnesses proceeded to the place, identified the dead body but they did not disclose the fact that the deceased was travelling in that very train and he had taken leave from his office. The learned Tribunal has considered all these points and elaborately discussed the same in the impugned judgment. I find that the claimant has not succeeded to prove that the deceased was travelling in Train No. 8626 on 3. 17.08.2007 and he had fallen from the running train due to rush in the compartment.
8. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed.
[D.N.Upadhyay,J.] P.K.S.