Allowed

Laxmi Devi v. Union of India through the General Manager Eastern Railway

Jharkhand HC1 Aug 2023MA/21/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Railway Claim Tribunal's dismissal of a compensation claim. It held the deceased was a bona fide passenger, his death resulted from an untoward incident under the Railways Act, and awarded Rs. 8 lakhs based on post-accident rules interpreted with interest.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment was set aside; compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- to be paid by the respondent to the claimant within four months.

Laxmi Devi Vs Union of India through the General… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

M.A.No.21 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No.21 of 2020

¶3

(Against the Judgment dated 20.12.2018 passed by Member (Technical), Railway Claim Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi passed in Case No. OA/IIU/RNC/153/2016)

¶4

------

¶5

Laxmi Devi wife of Late Vinod Kumar Mishra aged about 31 years resident of Village/Mohalla- Khaira Post and P.S- Khaira, DistrictJamui .... …. Applicant/ Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

.... …. Respondent / Respondent

¶9

------

¶10

For the Appellant : Ms. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, C.G.G.

¶11

(For the Union of India)

¶12

------

¶13

P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶14

------

¶15

By the Court : - Heard the parties.

¶16

This appeal, under Section 23 (1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been preferred against the Judgment dated 20.12.2018 passed by Member (Technical), Railway Claim Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi passed in Case No. OA/IIU/RNC/153/2016.

¶17

The brief facts of the case is that on 11.06.2016 when the deceased- Vinod Kumar Mishra was going by Banaras Express Train from Jamui Station to Madhupur Junction, due to heavy rush in the train the deceased was compelled to travel on standing position near the gate inside the bogie of the train. The passengers were jostling with one another for space near the gate of the bogie. While the said train was moving near the outer signal of Jasidih Junction, the deceasedVinod Kumar Mishra who was standing near the gate inside the bogie

¶18

¶19

M.A.No.21 of 2020

¶20

accidentally fell down from the moving train due to intense jostling amongst the passengers near the gate of the bogie on account of heavy rush. As a result of which the deceased sustained serious injuries and was admitted in Sadar Hospital, Deoghar for his treatment and he succumbed to the injuries in course of his treatment in the said hospital on 11.06.2016 itself. The deceased took up the said travel after purchasing a valid Second Class ticket for travelling.

¶21

The respondent in its written statement, challenged the maintainability of the claim petition on various technical grounds and pleaded that it is not the case of accidental fall from running train as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989 rather it is a self-inflicted injury.

¶22

On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned tribunal settled the following four issues:-

¶23

(1). Whether the deceased Vinod Kumar Mishra was a bonafide passenger as alleged?

¶24

(2). Whether any untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989 occurred to him while travelling by train Banaras Express from Jamui to Madhupur Jn. On 11.06.2016?

¶25

(3). Whether the Applicant is dependent of the deceased as defined under Section 123 (b) of Railways Act?

¶26

(4). Reliefs.

¶27

The learned tribunal first took up issue No. (1) and considered the Inquest Report, F.I.R. and Final Report and considered that the Inquest Report, F.I.R. Final Report do not show the recovery of any journey ticket and DRM’s report also shows that no journey ticket of the deceased was received at the spot. The learned tribunal considered paragraph 17.4 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 and also considered that in her cross-examination, the A.W.1 who is the wife of the deceased, has stated that she was not travelling with the deceased and her husband usually travels by a ticket and went on to hold that the applicant failed to discharge the initial burden by filing affidavit that the deceased was travelling with a bonafide journey ticket and decided the said issue No. (1) against the claimant.

¶28

¶29

M.A.No.21 of 2020

¶30

Ms. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha- learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment has been passed only on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is next submitted by Ms. Sinha that the learned tribunal committed a perversity by without assigning any reason coming to an abrupt conclusion that the issue No. (1) is decided against the claimant. It is further submitted by Ms. Sinha that the learned tribunal committed a gross illegality in rejecting the claim application of the appellant though the body of the deceased was recovered by the Railway Authority along with cash amount of more than 1.5 lakhs as stated by Sri Vinod Kumar- Sub Inspector, R.P.F. before the tribunal in para-6 of his cross-examination and it is highly unlikely that such a person travelling with such huge amount of cash will go for a ticketless journey. It is then submitted that in her affidavit filed in shape of examination-in-chief, A.W.1 has categorically stated that on 11.06.2016 after purchasing a valid second class ticket from Jamui Station to Madhupur Junction, the deceased boarded the Banaras Express Train at Jamui Station for going to Madhupur Junction and the said testimony of the A.W.1 has not been demolished in any manner in her cross-examination. It is next submitted by Ms. Sinha that in view of the materials and evidence available in the record, the learned tribunal ought to have come to the conclusion that the deceased fell down from the running Banaras Express Train because of heavy rush. Hence, this is a case of untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989 as it is a clear case of accidental fall and in the absence of any evidence put forth by the respondent; it cannot be said that the injury sustained by the deceased resulting in his death was a self-inflicted injury. It is lastly, submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the provision of the compensation is a beneficial piece of legislation, a liberal interpretation ought to be done which is more in consonance with the object of the act and for the benefit of the person, for whom the act was made and submits that the impugned judgment of the learned tribunal be set aside and the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- be awarded to the applicant.

¶31

¶32

M.A.No.21 of 2020

¶33

Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, learned C.G.C. submits that the learned tribunal has rightly held that the deceased- Vinod Kumar Mishra was not a bona fide passenger in the facts of the case. Hence, it is submitted that this appeal being without any merit be dismissed.

¶34

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

¶35

“Whether the tribunal erred in dismissing the application for compensation and if yes, to what amount of compensation if any, the claimants are entitled to?”

¶36

So far as the first part of the sole point for determination as to whether the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the application for compensation is concerned, perusal of the record reveals that in her affidavit sworn by the A.W.1 in shape of his examination-in-chief, she has categorically stated that the deceased-Vinod Kumar Mishra purchased a valid second class journey ticket from Jamui Station to Madhupur Junction and in view of the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph No.29 of the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra) , the same is sufficient to discharge the initial burden upon the claimant but this Court finds that the Railways has not adduced any evidence whatsoever to suggest that the deceased was not travelling with any bona fide railway journey ticket. On the other hand; undisputedly the deceased was travelling with huge amount of cash which was recovered near the place where he fell down and got injured, is a circumstance which goes against the contention of the respondent that the deceased was travelling without a journey ticket. At this stage, it will be relevant to refer to Paragraph No.29 of the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra) which reads as under:-

¶37

“29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden

¶38

¶39

M.A.No.21 of 2020

¶40

will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶41

Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned tribunal has committed perversity by answering the issue No. (1) against the claimant without any rhyme or reason. Hence, the finding of the learned tribunal in respect of the issue No. (i) is reversed and it is held that the deceased- Vinod Kumar Mishra was a bona fide passenger of the Banaras Express Train.

¶42

Since it has been admitted in the D.R.M’s report that the I.O. of the case has asserted that the death of the deceased was due to fall from running Banaras Express Train and the said report of the I.O. is not disputed by the railway authority coupled with the unchallenged testimony of the witnesses examined in this case by the claimant herself as A.W.1 wherein she deposed that the deceased purchased the journey ticket and boarded the Banaras Express Train. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the evidence in the record suggests that the deceased- Vinod Kumar Mishra died because of untoward incident as defined under Section 125 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989. This answers the first part of the sole point for determination.

¶43

Now coming to the second part of the sole point for determination with respect to the quantum of compensation is concerned, in view of the notification dated 22.12.2016 with effect from 01.01.2017, Rule 3(2) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the words Rs.4,00,000/- has been substituted with the words Rs.8,00,000/-.

¶44

Since the occurrence of accident took place on 11.06.2016 i.e. prior to 01.01.2017, relying upon the paragraph no.19 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra) which reads as under:-

¶45

“19. Accordingly, we conclude that compensation will be payable as applicable on the date of the accident with interest as may be considered reasonable from time to time on the same pattern as in

¶46

¶47

M.A.No.21 of 2020

¶48

accident claim cases. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled to higher of the two amounts. This order will not affect the awards which have already become final and where limitation for challenging such awards has expired, this order will not by itself be a ground for condonation of delay. Seeming conflict in Rathi Menon (supra) and Kalandi Charan Sahoo (supra) stands explained accordingly. The 4-Judge Bench judgment in Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra) holds the field on the subject and squarely applies to the present situation. Compensation as applicable on the date of the accident has to be given with reasonable interest and to give effect to the mandate of beneficial legislation, if compensation as provided on the date of award of the Tribunal is higher than unrevised amount with interest, the higher of the two amounts has to be given.”

¶49

this Court is of the considered view that since Rs.8,00,000/- is more than Rs.4,00,000/- with interest, hence, the claimant will be entitled to the higher of the two amounts i.e. Rs.8,00,000/-.

¶50

Accordingly, the impugned Judgment dated 20.12.2018 passed by Member (Technical), Railway Claim Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi passed in Case No. OA/IIU/RNC/153/2016 is set aside and the claim application vide Case No. OA/IIU/RNC/153/2016 is allowed to the aforesaid extent and the respondent is directed to pay Rs.8,00,000/- to the claimant within four months from the date of this judgment. 16. In the result, this appeal is allowed on contest but under the circumstances without any costs. 17. Let a copy of this Judgment along with the Lower Court Record be sent back to the learned Tribunal forthwith.

¶51

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶52

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 01^st of August, 2023 AFR/ Animesh

¶53

Laxmi Devi v. Union of India through the General Manager Eastern Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Devi 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

Statutes considered

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

Arati Tudu Vs Union of India through the General Manager Eastern Railway

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