Bombay High Court
Bhuvaneshwar S/O Bapurao Deulkar And ... vs Union Of India, Thr. The General ... on 22 August, 2019
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
1 27-J-FA-666-18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 666 OF 2018
APPELLANTS : 1. Bhuvaneshwar s/o Bapurao Deulkar,
(Ori.Claimants) Aged about 45 years, Occu. Service.
2. Ku. Yukta d/o Bhuvaneshwar Deulkar,
Aged about 09 years, Occu. Education.
(Applicant No.2 is minor u/g of Applicant
No.1.)
Both R/o 49, Gaglani Nagar, Wadali
Naka, Amravati - 444602 (M.S.)
VERSUS
RESPONDENT : Union of India,
(Ori. Respondent) Through The General Manager,
Central Railway, Mumbai CST.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P. R. Agrawal, Advocate for appellants.
Shri N. P. Lambat, Advocate for respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- MANISH PITALE, J.
DATED : 22/08/2019.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. By the present appeal, the original claimants have challenged the Judgment and order dated 03/10/2016 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, whereby claim petition filed by them, has been dismissed.
::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 11:58:32 :::
2 27-J-FA-666-18.odt
2. The aforesaid claim petition was filed by the appellants for the reason that on 28/05/2012, the dead body of the wife of appellant No.1 was found on the railway track. The said fact was recorded by Loco Pilot of the goods train, who noticed the body lying on the track at some distance from Badnera Station. A report was registered and further steps regarding Inquest Panchnama, Post-Mortem, etc. were taken. According to the appellants, the victim fell from Ahmedabad-Chennai Superfast Express Train bearing Train No.12655 in which she was travelling from Shegaon to Badnera. The respondent denied the aforesaid claim of the appellants and it was contended that the cause of death of the victim did not appear to be an untoward incident as defined under the Railways Act, 1989 and therefore, no compensation was payable to the appellants.
3. By the impugned Judgment and order, the Tribunal was found, on the basis of the evidence on record, that the appellants have failed to make out a case for grant of compensation under the provisions of the said Act and therefore, the claim petition filed by the appellants was dismissed. ::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 11:58:32 :::
3 27-J-FA-666-18.odt
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the material on record in the present case did indicate that an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the said Act had taken place causing death of the victim and that the appellants were entitled for Compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. It was submitted that there was discrepancy in the version given by the concerned employees of the railway administration as regards the condition in which the body was found and that they had completely failed to support their theory that the victim had committed suicide. On that basis, it was contended that the impugned Judgment deserved to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellants had failed to place on record any material to connect death of the victim with an untoward incident as defined under the provisions of the said Act. It is claimed that the material on record, particularly statement of appellant No.1 and the evidence of other witnesses on record falsifies the claim of the appellants that the victim had ::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 11:58:32 ::: 4 27-J-FA-666-18.odt accidentally fallen from Train No.12655, while travelling from Shegaon to Badnera and on that basis, it is submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard the learned counsel for rival parties. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, as to whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellants were not entitled for compensation because they had failed to prove that an untoward incident had occurred as defined under the provisions of the said Act, which had caused death of the victim.
7. The material on record, particularly Inquest Panchnama and the evidence led on behalf of the appellants, nowhere shows recovery of any railway ticket from the body of the victim or any other such material to indicate that the victim was indeed travelling in Train No.12655 from Shegaon to Badnera and that she had accidentally fallen from the said train leading to her death. There are no eyewitness to the incident and there is no material put forth on behalf of the appellants to connect the said train with the recovery of the dead body of the victim on the railway track near Badnera Station.
::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 11:58:32 :::
5 27-J-FA-666-18.odt
8. Even on the question as to whether the victim could be said to have been travelling by the said train on the basis of information first received regarding the fact that the body was found on the track, the deposition of witness RW-1 shows that when the train register showing the timing of the said train reaching Badnera Station is appreciated, it falsifies the claim that the victim could have fallen from the very train on the tracks leading to her death.
9. In this context, the contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the respondent had failed to prove that it was a case of suicide, is unsustainable because it was for the appellants to first place on record at least some material to connect the death of the victim with train travel, particularly while traveling in Train No.12566, as claimed by them. In the absence of any such material, it is difficult to accept that the present case could be said to be a case of untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the aforesaid Act and therefore, the claim petition filed for compensation under Section 124-A of the said Act, could not be granted. The Tribunal in the impugned Judgment and order ::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 11:58:32 ::: 6 27-J-FA-666-18.odt has appreciated the evidence and material on record in detail and upon applying the position of law to the facts of the present case, it has come to a considered conclusion that no case for grant of compensation is made out by the appellants. This Court does not find error committed by the Tribunal in the present case and therefore, the only point for consideration in the present appeal regarding entitlement of appellants towards compensation is answered in the negative and the present appeal is dismissed.
JUDGE Choulwar ::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 11:58:32 :::