Bombay High Court
The U.O.I. Gen. Manager, Central Rly vs Madhukar Ganpatrao Patode And Anr on 4 February, 2019
Author: A.S.Chandurkar
Bench: A.S.Chandurkar
242-J-FA-1092-09 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.1092 OF 2009
The Union of India,
General Manager,
Central Railway, CST, Mumbai ... Appellant.
-vs-
1. Madhukar Ganpatrao Patode
Age 63 years, Occ. Ex-serviceman
2. Kantabai Madhukarrao Patode
Age 58 years, Household
R/o Ward No.5, Gandhi Chowk,
Nandgaon Khandeshwar,
Dist. Amravati ... Respondents
Shri N. P. Lambat, Advocate for appellant.
Shri A. B. Bambal, Advocate for respondents.
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : February 04, 2019 Oral Judgment :
This appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking to challenge the judgment dated 02/04/2009 passed by the said Tribunal awarding compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 01:06:13 ::: 242-J-FA-1092-09 2/6
2. According to the respondents-claimants their son Manoj was travelling by Bhusaval-Wardha passenger for appearing for an examination at Nagpur. On 17/01/2005 he boarded the train at Badnera railway station which thereafter stopped at Talni railway station. In view of heavy rush in the train their son was thrown out due to a jerk when the train again started. Though their son was carrying a railway ticket the same was not found after the accident. In view of the death of the said passenger the respondents filed proceedings for grant of statutory compensation. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Railways it was pleaded that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that no untoward incident had occurred causing the death of their son. The parties led evidence before the Claims Tribunal which after considering the same allowed the application and granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest. Being aggrieved the present appeal has been filed.
3. Shri N. P. Lambat, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case as pleaded by the claimants was not liable to be accepted. Though it was the plea that the son of the respondents was proceeding to Nagpur for an examination, he had boarded the train which was running from Bhusawal to Wardha. There was no reason to board that train as its journey was to terminate at Wardha. He further submitted that no ticket was found from the belongings of the deceased which also cast a doubt on ::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 01:06:13 ::: 242-J-FA-1092-09 3/6 their case. The other documents prepared by the Authorities indicated that the deceased had been run over by the train and hence it was clear that the death occurred was not on account of an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. Without considering these aspects of the matter the learned Member allowed the claim application and granted compensation.
4. Shri A. B. Bambal, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that the respondent No.1 had stated on oath that he had purchased the ticket and the same was handed over to the deceased during travel. The statutory investigation report prepared by the Railway Authorities indicated that the deceased had a fall from the train resulting in the accident. Mere fact that the journey of the train was to terminate at Wardha would not be a reason to disbelieve the case of the claimants. Their son was a bonafide passenger and hence the claim was rightly allowed by the Tribunal. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision in Union of India vs. Rina Devi AIR 2018 SC 2362. He also referred to the decision in First Appeal No.305 of 2010 (The Union of India vs. Dhurpatabai w/o Kondiba Gomsale and anr.) dated 01/07/2017 to urge that the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation in view of Notification dated 22/12/2016 issued by the Ministry of Railways. ::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 01:06:13 ::: 242-J-FA-1092-09 4/6
5. The following point arises for determination :
" Whether the Claims Tribunal has rightly granted compensation as claimed ?"
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and I have perused records of the case. In the claim application it is the specific case pleaded that the son of the claimants was proceeding to Nagpur from Badnera for attending an examination at Nagpur. He boarded the train from Bhusawal to Wardha and met with an accident at Talni railway station. In the cross-examination of the claimant it has not been suggested that the case as pleaded was false as the train boarded was to terminate at Wardha. The communication by the Divisional Railway Manager dated 12/09/2005 refers to the statutory investigation report wherein it has been stated that the son of the respondents tried to board the train at Talni railway station when it started moving and in that process he fell down. The other documents indicate the death being caused on account of being run over by the train. Even the deposition of the employee of the Railways at Exhibit-70 indicated an unknown person informing the Authorities that a person was run over by the train after it had left the station. Considering this overall evidence on record, on preponderance of probabilities the Claims Tribunal was justified in recording the finding that the accident in question was an "untoward incident" and thus the claimants were liable to receive compensation. A ::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 01:06:13 ::: 242-J-FA-1092-09 5/6 mere fact that the train was to run only up to Wardha by itself cannot be a reason to disbelieve the entire case of the claimants. The point as framed is thus answered by holding that the Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation to the claimants.
7. In Dhurpatabai Kondiba Gomsale (supra) while dismissing the appeal preferred by the Union of India, benefit of the Notification dated 22/12/2016 was granted to the claimants and they were held entitled to receive compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest. This adjudication has been accepted by the appellant herein. Hence following that course the following order is passed :
(i) The appeal challenging the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal stands dismissed.
(ii) The respondents are at liberty to withdraw the balance amount of compensation lying in deposit along with accrued interest.
(iii) The claimants are entitled to get total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- in accordance with paragraph 15.4 of the decision in Union of India vs. Rina Devi AIR 2018 SC 2362. The Registrar (Judicial) with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties to calculate the balance amount of compensation to be paid to the respondents within period of 15 days from today.
The appellant shall thereafter within a period of eight weeks pay ::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 01:06:13 ::: 242-J-FA-1092-09 6/6 the balance amount to the respondents.
(iv) The First Appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE Asmita ::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 01:06:13 :::