Dismissed

Shri Nimai Ruj And Ors. v. Union Of India Through General Manager Eastern Railway

Jharkhand HC2 Nov 2022MA/339/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Miscellaneous Appeal No. 339 of 2017, the High Court of Jharkhand dismissed an appeal against the Railway Claims Tribunal's order rejecting a death claim of Rs. 4 lakhs. The Court upheld the Tribunal's view that the death resulted from being dashed by an unknown train, not an untoward incident during falling from a running train.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the claim for compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs was rejected.

Shri Nimai Ruj And Ors. Vs Union Of India Through General… — Insurance | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 339 of 2017

¶3

Shri Nimai Ruj

¶4

Kishna Ruj

¶5

Keshaw Ruj

¶6

…. APPLICANTS/APPELLANTS

¶7

-V E R S U S –

¶8

Union of India through General Manager, Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata … RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK

¶10

For the Appellants : Ms. Chaitali C. Sinha, Advocate. For the Resp/Railway : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate -----

¶11

12/02.11.2022 This appeal arises out of order dated 29.09.2016, passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal Ranchi Bench in OA(IIU) RNC/2015/0071 (Checklist No.2908150009), whereby and whereunder the claim application filed by the applicants/appellants, seeking compensation of Rs.4.00/- lakhs with interest has been dismissed.

¶12

The factual matrix of the case as has been delineated in original claim application is that on 30.05.2015, after purchasing and having a valid 2^nd Class Express ticket gtp, Jamtara Station to Vidyasagar Station, deceased wife of the appellant No.1 (herein) boarded in a 2^nd Class General Bogie of Tata-Danapur Express Train at Jamtara Station for going to Vidyasagar Station. There was heavy rush in the said General Bogie of the Train, which compelled the deceased to stand near the gate inside the Bogie and accidently fell down from the running train between Pole No.253/17 & 253/19 due to intense jostling amongst the passengers near the gate of the bogie on account of heavy rush. As a result of which, deceased wife of applicant/appellant No.1 sustained serious injury and died on spot. The applicants/appellants came to know about the said incident from the newspaper. Thereafter, they reached at Sadar Hospital Jamtara and indentified the deceased as Rita Devi, w/o appellant No.1 and accordingly an U.D. Case No.30/15 has been registered at Rail P.S. Madhupur on 30.05.2015 and the appellant No.1 being the husband of the deceased filed a claim application before the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi for adequate compensation.

¶13

¶14

After issuance of notice, Railway/respondent appeared and filed its written statement and stated that the case was not covered under Clause (a) to (e) to the proviso of Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed following issues:-

¶15

a) Whether the deceased Rita Devi was a bona fide passenger of any passenger train, was travelling in Tata-Danapur Express Train ?

¶16

b) Whether any untoward incident as defined under Seciton 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 has occurred with the applicant ?

¶17

c) Whether the applicants are entitled for the compensation as claimed and other relief, if any ?

¶18

4. After examining records of the case, learned Tribunal discussed the Issues in details and claim application filed by the claimants was dismissed on the ground that deceased was not a bona fide passenger and there is no evidence available on record to show that victim/deceased fell down from the running train, rather the evidences are otherwise and as such, it appears to be concocted case. The deceased did not die in an untoward incident as alleged in the claim petition and the death occurred due to dashing by unknown train. .

¶19

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied by the order dated 29.09.2016, passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi, the appellants-claimants has preferred this appeal.

¶20

Ms. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants assails the impugned Order on the ground that learned Tribunal had failed to consider the fact that very genuineness of the case was the statement of Bheem Kumar Prajapati, which was Exhibited as Ext A-2, the said person has totally denied the occurrence and later on, has stated that it was not his statement rather it was recorded by some other person. She further submits that as the very genuineness of the case is against the respondent, the entire case is falsified and in view of the fact that the husband of the deceased had filed an affidavit mentioning therein, that his wife died due to occurrence of untoward incident and having a valid ticket though the same was not recovered, his case ought to have been considered for compensation by the learned Tribunal. She further submits that even the DRM Report was not filed before the learned Tribunal, which was a statutory requirement as per law and in absence of the same, it can be comfortably said that the claimants/appellants have a good case and was entitled for compensation. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on the reported judgment of Hon’ble Court passed in

¶21

¶22

case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi reported in 2018(2) JBCJ 478 SC and submits that in view thereof appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 8 Lac from the Railways.

¶23

On the other hand, Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Railway vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim application of the appellants and there is no illegality or infirmity. He further submits that from perusal of the statement of the said Bheem Kumar Prajapati and other records, it appears that wrong interpretation has been given by the learned counsel for the appellants, the said person has nowhere denied the same, rather he says that he is educated person and signed the documents and which was drawn in his presence. There is no iota of evidence to show that it was a case of untoward incident and as such, Section 123 (c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 is not attracted.

¶24

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. From perusal of documents on record, evidences led as well as findings of the learned Tribunal, it appears that the Statement of A-2, which is the basis of compensation, is examined by this Court and it found that the statement of A-2/Bheem Kumar Prajapati is not in favour of the appellants rather it is otherwise. The FIR and Final Report, which is exhibited as Ext.A/1 as well and Inquest Report, which is exhibited as Ext.A/6 do not come to rescue of the claimant rather it helps the case of the respondent. The learned Tribunal has rightly held that it is not a case of untoward incident rather it is case of dashing by unknown train and this Court is in full agreement with the order of the learned Tribunal. The reliance of the learned counsel for the appellant on aforesaid reported judgment is also of no help to her since no document has been brought on record to show /prove that it is case of untoward incident as the victim did not fall down from the running train.

¶25

Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.

¶26

Let the lower court record, be returned back to the court concerned at the earliest.

¶27

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)

¶28

Punit/-

Shri Nimai Ruj And Ors. v. Union Of India Through General Manager Eastern Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Nimai Ruj And Ors. v. Union Of India Through General Manager Eastern Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Dipankar Roy Manager Legal Vs Amrit Jain And Ors.

New India Assurance Company Limited Represented Through Its Divisional Office No 1 Vs Roshni Mahakud And Ors.

Kauleshwar Dangi Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Arbind Mandal Vs Satish Mandal and Ors.

Rakhal Mahato Vs Kisto Mahato and Ors.

Pankaj Kumar Vs Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission Through Its Secretary And Anr.