Orissa High Court
Menaka Palei And Others vs Union Of India on 23 March, 2023
Author: B. P. Routray
Bench: B. P. Routray
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.271 of 2020
Menaka Palei and Others .... Appellants
Ms. Deepali Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India, represented through its
General Manager, East Coast Railway,
Bhubaneswar .... Respondents
Ms. S. Patra, Central Government Counsel
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
23.3.2023 Order No.
02. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Ms. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the claimant - Appellants and Ms. S. Patra, learned Central Government Counsel for Respondent - Union of India.
3. Present appeal by the claimants is directed against impugned judgment dated 12th February, 2020 of the Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar passed in OA (IIU)/102/2017, wherein the tribunal has refused to grant any compensation by disbelieving the case of the claimants.
Page 1 of 54. According to the claimant - Appellants the accident took place on 29th April, 2017 when the deceased namely Dasarath Palei travelled in Puri-Rourkela Passenger train from Delanga to Bhubaneswar with a valid journey ticket bearing No.F-21739226.
5. The undisputed facts remain that, the dead body of the deceased was noticed by the Keyman on 29th April, 2017 at 7.15 am lying on the down line track at KM No.437/22-20 in between Retanga- Bhubaneswar Railway Station. Bhubaneswar GR Police registered UD Case No.23 dated 29th April, 2017. Inquest was held over the dead body and it was sent for post mortem examination. According to post mortem examination report, the cause of death is due to hard and blunt trauma. The police submitted its enquiry report in the UD Case stating the death of the deceased due to accidental fall from running train.
6. The son of the deceased was examined as A.W.1 before the tribunal in support of the case of the claimants. The railways examined one witness, viz. R.W.1 who is RPF personnel. Besides the oral evidences, respective police papers including the journey ticket were adduced in evidence from the side of the claimants and similarly the railways rely on the report of the DRM including the enquiry report submitted by RPF.
7. The tribunal upon adjudication has concluded that the death of the deceased is not established due to accidental fall from running train, rather it appeared that the deceased while attending call of nature near the railway track had came in contact with the running train due to his own negligence.
Page 2 of 58. It is seen that the tribunal derived its conclusion based on a colour photograph produced on record revealing that the deceased was wearing one lungi and a green colour water bottle lying near him. Further the evidence of R.W.1 has been relied on in support of the contention of the railways.
9. The recovery of journey ticket bearing No.F-21739226 as per seizure list dated 29th April, 2017 prepared by police in GRPS UD Case No.23 of 2017 is not disputed. It is true that the inquest report does not speak recovery of any journey ticket from the dead body of the deceased. According to the inquest report dated 29th April 2017, the deceased was wearing a full pant with pink colour shirt and some other belongings including one money purse were recovered. But the tribunal held that the inquest report does not mention about recovery of any journey ticket and therefore subsequent mention of seizure of journey ticket in the seizure list has been implanted. This conclusion has no leg to stand since the inquest report is not the conclusive document to describe everything. Apart from that, recovery of a money purse from the deceased cannot be lost sight of, which gives possibility of more belongings kept in the money purse.
10. The observation of the tribunal with regard to wearing apparels of the deceased, which led the tribunal to conclude that the deceased had been for attending the call of nature, appears circumventive. It is for the reason that R.W.1 had enquired into the incident on 18th August, 2018 as appearing from the statement appended to the DRM's report, i.e. much after the alleged incident. But the enquiry by Bhubaneswar GR Police in UD Case No.23 of 2017 has been done on Page 3 of 5 the same day of accident. The inquest report, the seizure list and other documents prepared in course of such enquiry by GR police are on the same date of accident. Therefore, no substance is seen in support of the finding given by the tribunal that the deceased had been to attend call of nature at the time of incident instead of travelling in the train.
11. The seizure and production of journey ticket itself proves the fact about valid journey of the deceased in Puri - Rourkela Passenger Train on the date of accident. Further, finding of dead body near the railway track with other circumstances as endorsed in the enquiry report in the UD Case are found supporting to the evidence of A.W.1 to establish their case on record that the deceased died out of an untoward incident while travelling in the train. The claimants have thus, successfully established their case that the deceased died in an untoward incident and they being the wife and sons of the deceased are entitled for compensation.
12. In the result the appeal is allowed and the Respondent - Union of India is directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (eight lakhs) to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of accident, within a period of four months from today. The entire compensation amount including interest shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant - Appellants in equal share by keeping 50% of the share fall due to each claimant in separate fixed deposits in their names respectively, in any nationalized bank for a period of five years.
13. The copies of documents and evidences produced by Ms. Mohapatra in course of hearing are kept on record.
Page 4 of 514. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
( B.P. Routray) Judge M.K.Panda Page 5 of 5