Dismissed

Arati Tudu v. Union of India through the General Manager Eastern Railway

Jharkhand HC1 Aug 2023MA/20/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a Railway Claims Tribunal order denying compensation. Finding the appellant's evidence untrustworthy due to the deceased's death date, the court held the appellant failed to prove the deceased was a bonafide passenger as per Union of India v. Rina Devi.

What did the court decide?

The miscellaneous appeal was dismissed on contest without any costs; the judgment and records were sent back to the Tribunal.

Arati Tudu Vs Union of India through the General Manager Eastern Railway — Jharkhand HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

M.A. No. 20 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No.20 of 2020

¶4

Arati Tudu, daughter of Late Gopin Tudu, daughter of Late Parbati Marandi, aged about 27 years, resident of Village/Mohalla –R.C.T. Colony (Jatiya Kalyan Trust), Post and P.S. –Bidhanagar, District – Burdwan.

¶5

.... .... …. Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Post Office and Police Station –Garden Reach, District - Kolkata

¶8

.... .... .... Respondent

¶9

------

¶10

For the Appellant : Ms. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha, Advocate For the U.O.I. : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Senior Panel Counsel

¶11

P R E S E N T

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶13

------

¶14

By the Court:-

¶15

Heard the parties.

¶16

This miscellaneous appeal under Section 23 (1) of Railway Claims Tribunal Act is directed against the order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the Member (Technical)- Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/95/2016.

¶17

The brief fact of the case is that on 02.04.2016 while the deceased- Parbati Marandi @ Parbati Tudu was going from Durgapur Station to Jhajha Station, an untoward incident occurred. There was heavy rush in the train which compelled the bonafide passenger Parbati Marandi @ Parbati Tudu to stand near the gate inside the compartment. The passengers were jostling one another for space near the gate of the compartment. Due to heavy rush and jostling amongst the passengers near the gate of the compartment, the deceased

¶18

¶19

M.A. No. 20 of 2020

¶20

accidently fell down from the running train near Jamtara Station between Rly. K.M. No. 246/27 & 246/29 as a result of which the deceased sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. In the course of search for the deceased, the family members of the deceased came to know about the incident from the newspaper on 05.04.2016 and after getting the knowledge about the incident, the daughter of the deceased namely Arati Tudu @ Aarti Tudu reached at Rail P.S. Madhupur along with her family members and identified the deceased as her mother - Prabati Marandi @ Parbati Tudu.

¶21

¶22

In the written statement filed by the respondent –Union of India, the respondent –Union of India denied the contents of the claim application. The specific plea taken by the respondent was that the deceased was not travelling the train carrying passenger rather it is a case of self-inflicted injury and the death of the deceased is not due to the accidental fall from the running train and the deceased herself was responsible for her death and this is not a case of untoward incident as defined under Section 123(C)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. The respondent also pleaded that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and no railway journey ticket could be produced.

¶23

On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the

¶24

learned Tribunal framed the following three issues:-

¶25

1. Whether the deceased Parbati Marandi was a bonafide passenger as alleged?

¶26

2. Whether any untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 occurred to him while travelling by any train from Durgapur to Jhajha station on 02.04.2016?

¶27

¶28

M.A. No. 20 of 2020

¶29

3. Whether the Applicant is entitled for the compensation as claimed and other reliefs, if any?

¶30

In support of her case, the claimant examined herself as the sole witness being the A.W.1. In her examination-in-chief filed in the shape of an affidavit, she stated that on 03.04.2016, after purchasing and having a valid 2^nd Class ticket from Durgapur Station to Jhajha Station, her deceased mother namely Parbati Marandi @ Parbati Tudu boarded some train at Durgapur Station for going to Jhajha Station. In para -11 of her crossexamination, to a question as to how she came to know that her deceased mother was having a railway journey ticket, she replied that probably her mother purchased a journey ticket.

¶31

The learned tribunal first took up issue no. 1. The learned tribunal considered that the testimony of the A.W.1 before the tribunal that the deceased was having a journey ticket while travelling is not trustworthy as she herself has replied that probably her mother purchased a journey ticket and that cannot be a conclusive proof that her mother purchased a ticket and went on to hold that as the applicant failed to prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, hence decided the issue no. 1 against the claimant and went on to dismiss the claim application on contest.

¶32

Ms. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned tribunal passed the order on the basis of conjectures and surmises and failed to appreciate the evidence in the record that the deceased was having a journey with her at the time of her travel and was a bonafide passenger. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the

¶33

¶34

M.A. No. 20 of 2020

¶35

appellant that the learned tribunal committed an error in rejecting the claim of the compensation as the DRM report clearly establish that the death of the deceased occurred as a result of accidental fall from the said train because of heavy rush in the train. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment passed by the learned tribunal be set aside and the claim application of the claimant-appellant be allowed.

¶36

Mr. Sunil Kumar, the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand defends the impugned judgment passed by the learned tribunal. Drawing attention of this Court to the report of the A.S.I., R.P.F., kept at page no. 26 of the Lower Court Records, it is submitted that the said A.S.I., R.P.F., Jamtara upon conducting an enquiry on 02.04.2016 found that one Pravati Marandi aged 60 years, W/o Late Gopin Tudu, while travelling, fell down from the train and on 02.04.2016, the said Parvati Marandi was already dead. Mr. Sunil Kumar, the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondent, further drawing attention of the court to the postmortem report of the deceased dated 03.04.2016 submits that therein also, it has been mentioned that time elapsed since death is within three days, hence it is submitted that the contention of the A.W.1 in the affidavit that on 03.04.2016 by which date, the deceased was already dead is only a cock and bull story and that too has been diluted in her crossexamination wherein she has stated that probably, the deceased purchased a journey ticket. Hence, it is submitted that the learned tribunal has rightly held that it could not be

¶37

¶38

M.A. No. 20 of 2020

¶39

established that the deceased was a bonafide passenger having a journey ticket and thus is not entitled to the compensation and it is submitted that, hence this appeal being without any merit be dismissed.

¶40

10.

¶41

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, the only point for determination which crop up in this appeal is:-

¶42

“ Whether the learned tribunal erred in holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and thus not entitled to compensation?”

¶43

It is pertinent to mention here that as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi , reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 , the initial burden is on the claimant to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and such burden can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and thereafter the burden will shift to the Railways and the issues can be decided on the facts shown or the attaining circumstances.

¶44

Now in this case, as rightly submitted by the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent, the deceased was dead by 02.04.2016, hence the affidavit of the A.W.1 which was filed as her examination-in-chief wherein it has been mentioned that on 03.04.2016, the deceased purchased a journey ticket is not trustworthy as because by 03.04.2016, the deceased - Parbati Marandi @ Parbati Tudu was already dead having died on 02.04.2016 and the A.W.1, the sole

¶45

¶46

M.A. No. 20 of 2020

¶47

witness examined in the case even cannot withstand the cross-examination having stated in para-11 of her crossexamination that probably, the deceased purchased one journey ticket. Hence, under such circumstances, the finding of fact arrived at by the learned tribunal that the claimant failed to establish the fact that the deceased was a bonafide passenger cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. So the sole point for determination is answered in the negative.

¶48

In view of the discussions made above, this appeal being devoid of any merit; is dismissed on contest but under the circumstances without any costs.

¶49

Let a copy of this Judgment along with the Lower Court Record be sent back to the learned tribunal forthwith.

¶50

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶51

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 1^st August, 2023 AFR/ Sonu-Gunjan/-

Arati Tudu v. Union of India through the General Manager Eastern Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arati Tudu v. Union of India through the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mulia Devi Vs Rameshwar Mahto

Amarendu Prakash Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arvind Kumar Bhakta Vs Asgar Ali And Ors.

Ms Bokaro Steel Plant Represented through John Tapan Kongari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Kumar Puri Vs Union of India through the General Manager East Central Railway

Laxmi Devi Vs Union of India through the General Manager Eastern Railway