Patna High Court - Orders
Aasha Gupta vs The Union Of India on 3 May, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar
Bench: Rakesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.954 of 2010
======================================================
Aasha Gupta, Wife of Late Sudhir Kumar Gupta, Resident of Village -
Bihiya, P.O. & P.S. Bihiya, Distt. Bhojpur
.... .... Applicant / Appellants
Versus
The Union Of India, through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, 3-
Koelaghat Street, Kolkata.
.... .... Respondent/Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Mohan Murari
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 03-05-2012Heard Sri Krishna Mohan Murari, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Bijoy Kumar Sinha, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Respondent / Union of India through General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata.
The present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), has been preferred against an order dated 07.09.2010, passed in Case No. OA00056 of 2001 by Sri S.K. Sinha, learned Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, (hereinafter referred to as the "Claims Tribunal") whereby, learned Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petition filed by the claimant whose husband died in a Railway accident.
Short fact of the case is that the appellant filed a claim petition in the learned Claims Tribunal disclosing therein that on 2 Patna High Court MA No.954 of 2010 (5) dt.03-05-2012 2/5 06.01.2001, her husband was traveling on a Train vide Train No. 4083 UP from Patna Junction to Buxar Junction with proper Railway ticket and due to heavy rush in the Train he was standing at the door point. Due to jerk, he fell down from the Train near Kulhariya Junction and died. In support of the claim two witnesses were examined. One, the claimant herself, got examined as witness no. 1, and filed an affidavit in support of the claim case, wherein, it has been indicated that the husband of the claimant / appellant was traveling from Patna Junction to Bihiya Junction by Train No. 4083UP (Mahananda Express) with valid Railway ticket. However, he died due to fall from the Train near Kulhariya Railway Station. One another witness namely Vimal Kumar Gupta, was also examined as a witness in support of the claim case, who had claimed to be co-passenger and had seen the occurrence while the husband of the claimant had fallen down from the Train on the date of occurrence. Besides oral evidences, the claimant had brought on record certain documentary evidence i.e. copy of F.I.R., final report, inquest report, post-mortem examination report and other documents.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claim of the appellant that the deceased had fallen from the running train is corroborated from Exhibit -"A5", which is a copy of inquest 3 Patna High Court MA No.954 of 2010 (5) dt.03-05-2012 3/5 report. He has specifically referred Column No. "9" of the inquest report, wherein, it has been indicated that deceased had fallen from Train No. 4083 UP and died due to such accident. Before the learned Claims Tribunal, Respondent / Railway, though appeared and filed written statement, the Respondent / Railway has not brought on record any documentary evidence to disapprove the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Only vague denial has been made in the written statement. Post- mortem examination report also corroborates that deceased died due to fall from the Train. Before the learned Tribunal materials were brought in support of the claim and the learned Tribunal also did not dispute other grounds but the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim only on the ground that no railway ticket was recovered from possession of the deceased nor the claimant had brought on record any material to show that the deceased was traveling with a valid Railway ticket.
Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petition. He firstly submits that while filing claim petition it was asserted that deceased was traveling from Patna to Buxar, whereas, on affidavit, the appellant / claimant has asserted that deceased was going from Patna to Bihiya. He submits that contradiction in the stand of the 4 Patna High Court MA No.954 of 2010 (5) dt.03-05-2012 4/5 claimant creates serious doubt on the claim. He further submits that there is no evidence on record to corroborate that the deceased had fallen from the running Train. Only dead body was recovered near the Railway track.
Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record and also the Lower Court Record. It is true that neither in the inquest report there was any mentioning of recovery of Railway ticket nor any other material was brought on record to suggest that the deceased was traveling with a valid Railway ticket. But fact remains that the deceased died due to fall from the running train. This fact was corroborated by an eye witness i.e. "AW 2". In this case wife of the deceased is the claimant and she had fairly stated that she had not seen the occurrence. Time without number it has been held that if death occurs due to fall from a running train or within the premises of the Railways, presumption would be that the person was a bona fide passenger. In such situation, onus lies on the Railways to prove that the deceased passenger was ticket less traveller. On this very point, it would be relevant to refer 2008(3) PLJR 711 (Smt. Kaushalaya Devi & Ors. vs. Union of India Thr. General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, U.P.).
In view of the fact that it is not in dispute that deceased 5 Patna High Court MA No.954 of 2010 (5) dt.03-05-2012 5/5 died due to fall from the running train, only on the ground of non- production of Railway ticket, claim petition was not required to be rejected, and as such, the impugned order is hereby set aside with a direction to the Railway authority to pay compensation, as claimed in the claim petition, to the appellant / claimant within a period of two months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order.
The appeal stands allowed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/-