Dismissed

Smt. Kamla Devi and Others v. Union of India Thru. General Manager, North Central Railway, Prayagraj

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2024FAFO/295/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the dismissal of a railway accident compensation claim by the Railway Claims Tribunal. The High Court found no illegality or error in the Tribunal's conclusion that the evidence failed to establish the deceased was a bonafide passenger and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed against the judgment and order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissing the claim petition was dismissed.

Smt. Kamla Devi and Others vs Union of India… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:64950

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 295 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Smt. Kamla Devi And Others Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. General Manager, North Central Railway, Prayagraj Counsel for Appellant :- Vishal Tahlani,Manish Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vishal Tahlani, learned counsel for the appellants.

¶7

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31.05.2024 passed in O.A/II/935/2015; Smt. Kamla Devi & Others versus Union of India passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, by means of the which claim petition of the appellants has been dismissed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that son of the deceased had given evidence that the deceased had purchased ticket before him and kept it with him, which was lost in the accident but the learned tribunal without considering it dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appellants have failed to prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, therefore the judgment and order passed by the learned tribunal is not tenable and liable to be set aside.

¶9

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

¶10

The claim petition was filed claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased Suresh Chandra i.e. husband of the appellant no.1 and father of the appellants no.2 to 4 had suffered serious injuries by falling from the Shikohabad-Kanpur passenger train while he was going from Achalda to Kanpur Central Railway Station on 08.08.2015. He had purchased the ticket of second class and traveling as a bonafide passenger. The son of the deceased i.e. appellant no.2, Akash Kumar appeared as AW 2. He in his affidavit filed in evidence, stated that he had accompanied his father to the railway station to leave him. His father had purchased second class ticket before him and thereafter boarded on Shikohabad-Kanpur passenger train for Kanpur Central Railway Station. However, in the cross examination he stated that his father was traveling on 08.08.2015. He was going to Kanpur Central. He left home stating that he was going to see a boy for his daughter. He was going alone. He had gone to leave him but he does not know as to on which train he had boarded. He had purchased ticket

¶11

himself and kept it with him, and on information from the police station Achalda, he came to know that he fell down from train.

¶12

In view of above, it is apparent that A.W.2 has given contradictory evidence as in the affidavit filed in evidence, he stated that he had accompanied his father to station to leave him and he had purchased second class ticket before him and he had boarded in Shikohabad-Kanpur passenger for Kanpur Central from Achhalda, whereas in the cross examination he has admitted that his father had gone alone and he does not know the train on which he had boarded. Therefore the evidence of A.W.2 shows that he is not disclosing the correct facts.Learned tribunal after considering the evidence of A.W.2 has recorded a finding that the appellants have failed to prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and dismissed the claim petition.This Court does not find any illegality or error in the finding so recorded on the basis of evidence and material on record. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show anything contrary to it.

¶13

In view of above, this Court is of the view that the appeal has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds, which is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 20.9.2024 Akanksha Sri.

¶16

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

Smt. Kamla Devi and Others v. Union of India Thru. General Manager, North Central Railway, Prayagraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kamla Devi and Others v. Union of India Thru. General Manager, North Central Railway, Prayagraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Habib Vs Riyasat Ali and Ors.

Yagyeshwar Prasad Vs Rasool Ahmad and 4 Ors.

Nanke @ Dhani Ram vs Shri Om Prakash, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Ikauna Dist Shravasti

Rudrabhan Singh vs Sri Om Prakash Gupta, Deputy Director of Edu. Ayodhya

Sadrul Hasan vs Sri Ravindra Kumar, Director, Pension, Ayurvedic Services, U.P. Lko. and Another

Manoj Kumar and Others vs Sri Parth Sharthi Sen Sharma, Prin. Secy. Chikitsa ANUBHAG-1, Lko. and Another