Bombay High Court
Saida Wd/O Moinuddin Ansari, And Others vs Union Of India, Its General Manager, ... on 9 July, 2015
Author: A.P.Bhangale
Bench: A.P.Bhangale
1 fa919.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.919 OF 2014
1.Saida wd/o. Moinuddin Ansari,
Aged 33 years, Occ. Household.
2.Ku. Sain d/o. Moinuddin Ansari,
Aged 12 years, Occ. Student.
3.Wasim s/o. Moinuddin Ansari,
Aged 6 years, Occ. Student.
Applicant nos. 2 and 3 are minors
through their natural guardian
applicant no.1.
All r/o. Bhankheda, Near House of
Shankar Khapekar and Temple of
Pillu Pande, Nagpur. .......... APPELLANTS
// VERSUS //
Union of India,
through It's General Manager,
S.E.C.Railway, Bilaspur. .......... RESPONDENT
::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2015 23:57:52 :::
2 fa919.14.odt
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.S.K.Sable, Adv. for the Appellants.
Mr.N.P.Lambat, Adv. for the Respondent.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J.
DATE : 8.7.2015.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment dt.11.7.2013 delivered by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Claim Application No.OAIIu/NGP/2011/0045. The claim application was made by the applicants claiming compensation on account of accidental death of one Moinuddin Ansari, who allegedly fell down from an unknown passenger train on 26.4.2004. The applicants alleged that said Moinuddin Ansari was travelling from Nagpur to Chhindwara narrow guage section of Railway ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2015 23:57:52 ::: 3 fa919.14.odt line. According to the applicants, the deceased was going to attend marriage of his relative. He fell down from the train and died in the hospital on 28.4.2004. The applicants approached the Tribunal after four years and six months delay.
However, delay was condoned in the larger interest of justice as there was a claim that it was a case of untoward incident.
According to the applicants, the deceased had fallen from an unknown train while travelling on 26.4.2004. The claim was denied by the respondents/Railways. The applicants had relied upon some police papers such as spot panchanama, inquest panchanama, post mortem report, Death Certificate, ration card, voters identity card etc. The learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal found that, in the voters identity card, marked as Exh.AW-1/6, name of husband of applicant no.1 was mentioned as Moinuddin Ansari. In ration card No.AW-1/9, relationship with applicant no.2 is mentioned as daughter of the deceased. However, surprisingly the claim was also made for applicant no.3 whose age was mentioned as four years.
The date of death of deceased Moinuddin was mentioned as 28.4.2004. Filing of the claim application was belated by four ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2015 23:57:52 ::: 4 fa919.14.odt years and six months. In these circumstances, the 3rd claimant may have born in the year 2008 or 2009. Prima facie, there was no acceptable evidence to believe that third applicant Wasim, aged four years, was son of Moinuddin Ansari. The claim for third applicant was thus bound to be rejected as baseless and bogus as it appears to be baseless and bogus. The alleged untoward incident of death happened on 26.4.2004.
Wasim could not have been born to Moinuddin then since he was 4 years old in the year 2011 when the Claim Application was filed.
3. Regarding documentary evidence, no passenger ticket was recovered from the possession of the said Moinuddin.
Even inquest panchanama Exh.AW1/1 did not show that anything was seized or recovered from the body of the deceased. That being so, it was very difficult to believe that Moinuddin was bona fide passenger of train on 26.4.2004, as alleged. Even train identity is not proved as to by which train he was travelling. Though the untoward incident happened as alleged on 26.4.2004, the claimants were dormant and lodged ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2015 23:57:52 ::: 5 fa919.14.odt their claim only after five years and six months from the date of said alleged untoward incident. Considering such belated and stale claim, it was impossible to expect the Railway Administration to conduct proper inquiry after such a long gap of time. That being so, in the absence of valid and acceptable evidence regarding the untoward incident as contemplated u/s.123 (c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, the claim is unreasonable, belated and stale and could not have been allowed in absence of any acceptable documentary evidence.
Hence, I do not find fault with the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the Presiding Officer, Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. The appeal is meritless and hence, it is dismissed. No order as to costs.
JUDGE jaiswal ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2015 23:57:52 :::