Bombay High Court
Union Of India Thru. Gen. Manager vs Unita Pradip Meshram & 3 Ors on 10 January, 2019
fa23.08.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.23/2008
APPELLANT: Union of India,
Orig. Through the General Manager,
Respondent Central Railway, MUMBAI C.S.T.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS: 1) Unita Wd/o Pradip Meshram,
Orig. aged about 28 years, Occ :
Applicants Household.
2) Manisha D/o Pradip Meshram,
aged about 5 years, Occ. :
Student, Minor through
natural guardian, Respondent No.1.
3) Kashiram S/o Sukha Meshram,
aged about 65 years,
Occ : Nil.
All R/o Karachkheda, Post -
Kardha, Tah. & Distt. Bhandara.
4) Sugradabai w/o Kashiram Meshram
(R. No.4 is deleted)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N.P. Lambat Counsel with Ms Shweta Hanwate, Counsel for appellant
Ms M.H. Pathade, Counsel h/f Shri P.S. Mirache, Counsel for respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ARUN D. UPADHYE, J.
DATE : 10/01/2019
::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/01/2019 04:28:36 :::
fa23.08.odt
2
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant/Union of India through Central Railway has filed this appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, challenging the judgment and award dated 10/8/2007 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Claim Petition No.95/OA-II/RCT/NGP/2005.
2. By the impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim and directed the Railway Department to pay amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondents/claimants within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the claimants shall be entitled to recover the said amount with interest @ 6% per annum thereon till final payment with further directions.
3. This first appeal was admitted on 25/9/2009 and was waiting for its turn for final hearing. Today, the first appeal is called out for final hearing. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and his railway ticket is not ::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/01/2019 04:28:36 ::: fa23.08.odt 3 produced on record. It is further submitted that when the deceased was standing near the door of toilet and when train was started, he fell down and he himself inflicted injury because of his own act. The Tribunal has not considered this aspect and wrongly allowed the application and granted compensation to the claimants. The first appeal filed by the Railway Department, therefore, be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and award.
4. The learned Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 has submitted that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in the railway from C.S.T. to Nagpur. When he was standing near the door of the toilet he fell down and died. It is further submitted that in the inquest panchanama it is mentioned that the ticket was recovered from his pocket and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and it was an untoward incident and claimants are entitled for compensation. The learned Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3, therefore, prayed that the first appeal be dismissed.
5. Considering the submissions of both sides, I have perused the impugned judgment and award as well as the material placed on record. On perusal of the same, it appears that the ::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/01/2019 04:28:36 ::: fa23.08.odt 4 respondents - claimants are dependents of the deceased Pradip Meshram, who was travelling in express train from C.S.T. to Nagpur on 23/3/2005. It is the contention of the claimants that during the course of journey when deceased was standing near the door of the toilet in the train and was waiting there, due to jerk he fell down and died. It is also contended that the deceased was having 2 nd class ticket dated 22/3/2005 issued by the Railway authorities. The claimants have also relied upon the documents, i.e., inquest panchanama, post mortem report and Merg report.
6. The appellant-Railway Department has resisted the claim by filing the written statement and denied the contention raised by the claimants. According to the Railway Department, the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act. According to the Railway Department, the deceased himself was negligent and fell down. According to the Railway Department, he was not a bona fide passenger in the said train. Lastly, it is submitted that the claim petition be dismissed.
7. After recording the evidence in the matter and after hearing both sides, the learned Tribunal has allowed the petition. From the above facts and circumstances of the case, following points ::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/01/2019 04:28:36 ::: fa23.08.odt 5 arise for my consideration and I record my findings thereon with reasons.
POINTS FINDINGS
(1) Whether the claimants prove that the
deceased Pradip Meshram died in an untoward incident in terms of Section 123 (c) (2) of the ...Yes Railways Act ?
(2) Whether the Railway Department proves that the deceased Pradip Meshram was not a bona fide passenger on 23/3/2005 in the express train ? ...No (3) What order ? ...As per final order.
REASONS
8. As to point nos.1 and 2 :- I have perused the evidence on record. The claimant - Unita Meshram in her deposition has stated that her husband met with an untoward incident on 23/3/2005 near Gram Shiroli area Railway line, Dhamangaon Railway Station, District Wardha. She also deposed that her husband was travelling by express train from Mumbai towards Nagpur as a passenger and fell down from the train and died. The deceased was having ticket dated 22/3/2005 and he was a bona fide ::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/01/2019 04:28:36 ::: fa23.08.odt 6 passenger. She also stated that necessary documents, i.e., spot panchanama, inquest panchanama and post mortem report are filed on record.
9. She was cross-examined by the Railway Department. In the cross-examination, it was suggested to her that her husband did not fall from the train, she is not wife of the deceased and respondent no.2 is not daughter and respondent nos.3 and 4 are not parents, but she denied. In the cross-examination, she has stated that she has not seen the deceased buying ticket. There is no suggestion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and having no valid ticket. The evidence of Unita is fully corroborated by the documentary evidence on record. In the inquest panchanama it is clearly mentioned that in the pocket of the pant of the deceased the ticket from C.S.T. to Nagpur dated 22/3/2005 was found. It means that the deceased was holding valid ticket on the date of travelling, i.e., 23/3/2005. The documents and record also show that the police personnel found the dead body of the deceased who fell down from train at loc 724/8/10 (T.P. No.) at bridge No.726. The accidental death was registered vide A.D. No.6/2005 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with Police Station ::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/01/2019 04:28:36 ::: fa23.08.odt 7 Mangrul Dastagir. The spot panchanama was prepared by the police on the same day, i.e., 23/3/2005. The inquest panchanama and post mortem are also filed on record. The cause of death is fracture with blood loss. Considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the claimants have proved that the deceased Pradip Meshram was travelling by train on 23/3/2005 from C.S.T. to Nagpur and met with an untoward incident.
10. The Railway Department has examined R.W.1 - Tukaram Katru Ingole who is Mokadam. According to him, on 23/3/2005 when he was going with his gang for work, he noticed a dead body of a man lying at about 15 kilometers from Pulgaon Station between Pulgaon and Talni. He reported the matter to the Police Station.
11. In the cross-examination, he stated that he is not aware of the accident except the fact that he found dead body lying under the bridge. The evidence of this witness is not at all helpful for the Railway Department for proving the fact that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The Railway Department did not lead any evidence to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and no material is placed on record. The Tribunal has considered ::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/01/2019 04:28:36 ::: fa23.08.odt 8 the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence on record and has rightly come to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and railway ticket consisting of Rs.179/- was recovered from his body as per the investigating report and held that the claimants have proved that deceased Pradip Meshram died in an untoward incident in terms of Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based upon the documentary evidence. Hence, no interference is called for in the said findings. I have no hesitation to answer point no.1 in the affirmative and point no.2 in the negative. In the result, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
(i) First Appeal No.23/2008 is dismissed.
(ii) The respondent nos.1 to 3 are entitled for the
amount with interest deposited by the appellant, after identification.
No order as to costs.
JUDGE Wadkar, P.S. ::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/01/2019 04:28:36 :::