Dismissed

Smt. Rani Devi and Others v. Union of India. Thru. General Manager, Northen Railway Baroda House New Delhi

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2024FAFO/268/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the dismissal by the Railway Claims Tribunal of a claim petition alleging the death of Ram Khilawan due to falling from a train. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision due to discrepancies between the ticket and witness statements and lack of corroborative evidence proving the fall.

What did the court decide?

First appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is dismissed.

Smt. Rani Devi and Others vs Union of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:57876

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 268 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Smt. Rani Devi And Others Respondent :- Union Of India. Thru. General Manager, Northen Railway Baroda House New Delhi Counsel for Appellant :- Vishal Tahlani

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Vishal Tahlani, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶7

This first appeal from order under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.06.2024 passed in O.A./II/U/LKO/622/2019 (Smt. Rani Devi & Others Vs. Union of India.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was travelling from Ambiyapur to Phaphoond and ticket was purchased by him which was produced by the family member before the railway authorities and thereafter before the learned claims tribunal but the claims tribunal did not rely on the same and dismissed the claim petition, whereas the deceased died on account of falling from the train in the accident, therefore the appellants are constrained to approach this Court.

¶9

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, I have perused the records.

¶10

The claim petition was filed alleging that the deceased Ram Khilawan had started journey on 18.08.2019 from Ambiyapur railway station from a passenger train. After purchasing a ticket of second class from Ambiyapur to Phaphoond, he fell from the train near Ambiyapur railway station on account of which he died. The TSR report dated 28.02.2020, which has been placed on record as annexure no.3, indicates that the dead body of the deceased was found between the railway track on 18.08.2019 and the photo copy of the ticket was produced by the wife on 19.08.2019. The ticket was from Ambiyapur to Phaphoond. The inquest report was prepared in presence of father and mother of the deceased, who stated that to know the actual reason of death the panchnama of the dead body may be done, therefore it is apparent that the father and brother of the deceased, at the time of inquest, have not stated that the deceased was travelling from the train, a copy of the inquest report has been placed on record as annexure no.2, which also indicates that nothing was found

¶11

from the body of the deceased except cloths as nil is mentioned against the article, therefore it is apparent that neither the family members of the deceased claimed at the time when the body was recovered that he was travelling from the train nor the ticket or anything else was found to show that he was travelling from the train.

¶12

Learned tribunal, after considering the pleadings and evidence found that the wife of the deceased has stated that the deceased was going from Akari to Phaphoond. The deceased was resident of Akari but the ticket was produced which was for a journey from Ambiyapur to Phaphoond. Accordingly, the tribunal found that the affidavit filed by the wife of the deceased also does not tally with the records which was prepared immediately after dead body was found. The learned tribunal also found that the falling from train could not be proved.

¶13

In view of above, this Court is of the view that learned tribunal has rightly and in accordance with law dismissed the claim petition. The appeal is misconceived and lacks merit.

¶14

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶15

...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.) Order Date :- 27.8.2024 Haseen U.

¶16

Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Rani Devi and Others v. Union of India. Thru. General Manager, Northen Railway Baroda House New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rani Devi and Others v. Union of India. Thru. General Manager, Northen Railway Baroda House New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rikkhi Ram vs Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Ltd., Kanpur Nagar Thru. Branch Manager and Others

National Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Asstt. Manager,Regional Office,Lucknow vs Smt. Maikin and Others

Smt. Prem Kumari and Others vs Pawan Kumar Gangwar, Secy. Lko. Development Authority Lko. and Another

Shiv Shankar Singh vs Shwetab Singh, Naib Tehsildar, Milkipur, Faizabad / Ayodhya

Shyamlal vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 8 Others

Divya Srivastava @ Manu and Others vs the Presiding Officer Motor Vehicle Claim Tribunal, Raibareli and Others