Allowed

Parna Manjhi v. Union of India through the General Manager East Central Railway

Jharkhand HC4 Jul 2023MA/316/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal by holding the disputed finding of non-bonafide passenger as grossly illegal. Reversing the Tribunal, the Court awarded Rs. 8,00,000 based on unchallenged witness testimony proving a valid ticket was purchased prior to the fatal accident.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment set aside; compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 directed to be paid to the claimants within four months.

Parna Manjhi Vs Union of India through the… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

M.A.No.316 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No.316 of 2019

¶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/99/2017)

¶4

------

¶5

Parna Manjhi aged about 55 years, father of deceased Ramjit Soren S/o. Late Guddu Manjhi.

¶6

Aghani Devi, aged about 52 years, Mother of deceased Ramjit Soren w/o Parna Manjhi.

¶7

Lilmuni Devi aged about 29 years, w/o deceased Ramjit Soren.

¶8

All are residents of village/Mohalla:- Ulgadda, Purnadih P.O.:Ulgadda, P.S:- Petarwar, District:- Bokaro, Pin no-829121 (Jharkhand)

¶9

.... …. Applicants/ Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, P.O. + P.S.:- Hajipur, District:- Hajipur (Bihar)

¶12

.... …. Respondent / Respondent

¶13

------

¶14

For the Appellants : Mr. Dharmendra Kr. Malityar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Sr. Panel Counsel (For the Union of India)

¶15

------

¶16

P R E S E N T

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶18

------

¶19

By the Court : - Heard the parties.

¶20

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/99/2017 whereby and where under the prayer for claim was made by the appellants who are respectively the father, mother and wife of the deceased- Ramjit Soren.

¶21

¶22

M.A.No.316 of 2019

¶23

The brief facts of the case is that on 14.08.2016 while the deceased- Ramjit Soren was travelling from Chandrapura Railway Station to Gomia Railway Station after purchasing a valid ticket boarded the Gomoh-Barkakana UP Passenger Train No.53359 with copassenger Shyam Narayan Prasad as a bonafide passenger, due to rush of passengers in the bogie, the deceased- Ramjit Soren was standing at the gate inside the bogie and as the train reached between Bokaro Thermal and Gomia Railway Station there was push and pressure among the passengers and there was a jerk in the train and because of the same Ramjit Soren could not hold his grip and accidentally fell down from the running train between Bokaro Thermal and Gomia Railway Station in between the pole No.43/16 - 43/17 and sustained injuries and died of the injuries. In connection with the said untoward accident, U.D. Case No.05 of 2016 was registered by Gomia Railway Police Station. The inquest report of the dead body was prepared and post-mortem of the dead body was conducted. It was found that the neck severed at the level of Mid Zone and the cause of the death was the said injuries found. The post-mortem was conducted on 16.08.2016 and the death was found within twenty four hours.

¶24

In the fardbeyan of Md. Imtiyaz Ansari on the basis of which the said U.D. Case was registered, it has been categorically mentioned that the occurrence took place as the deceased fell down from the UP Passenger Train from Gomoh to Barkakana.

¶25

In its written statement, the respondent challenged the maintainability of the claim application and pleaded that the occurrence took place was not an untoward incident in terms of Section 124 (A) of the Railway Act, 1989 (Railways Act, 1989 as amended by Amendment inserted by Act No.28 of 1994). The respondent next pleaded that the claim of jostling and heavy rush in the bogie is purely imaginary and from the position of the dead body, it is well established that the deceased committed suicide as his head was inside the track and rest body was outside and as no Railway Ticket was recovered during the inquest, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

M.A.No.316 of 2019

¶29

tribunal settled the following four issues:-

¶30

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

¶31

(2). Whether the deceased had died, due to alleged untoward incident?

¶32

(3). Whether the Applicant or other dependents of the deceased are entitled to get compensation?

¶33

(4). Reliefs.

¶34

In support of their case, the claimants examined the father of the deceased namely Parna Manjhi as A.W.1, co-passenger Shyam Narayan Prasad as A.W.2 besides furnishing photocopy of relevant documents. The respondent- Railways also examined Md. Imtiyaz Ansari- a porter of Bokaro Thermal Railway Station as R.W.1 and Rajendra Prasad- A.S.I. of the case as R.W.2.

¶35

The learned tribunal first took issue No. (1) and considered the fact that inquest report, F.I.R. and Final Report do not show the recovery of any journey ticket and as no journey ticket was recovered during the search of the body of the deceased, hence, by relying upon 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 , para 25 of which reads as under:-

¶36

“25. We are unable to uphold the above view as the concept of “self-inflicted injury” would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of liability based on “no fault theory”. We may in this connection refer to the judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar, (2019) 12 SCC 398 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1443 : (2017) 13 Scale 652] laying down that plea of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based on “no fault theory” under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an “untoward incident” entitling a victim to the compensation and will not fall under the proviso to Section 124-A merely on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor.”

¶37

the learned tribunal came to the conclusion that the applicants have failed to prove the bonafide of the deceased passenger- Ramjit Soren and decided the issue No.(1) against the claimants and held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. Hence, there is no need to

¶38

¶39

M.A.No.316 of 2019

¶40

give any finding in respect of the remaining issues.

¶41

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment and award is not sustainable in law. It is next submitted that it is a settled principle of law, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra) that initially the burden is upon the claimants to establish that the deceased was a bonafide passenger in the train having a valid ticket and this initial burden of the appellants can be discharged by filing an affidavit. It is next submitted that the father of the deceased who has been examined as A.W.1 and A.W.2 both have stated about the deceased having purchased the journey ticket and after purchasing the journey ticket having boarded the Gomoh-Barkakana UP Passenger Train with the co-passenger A.W.2 and the claimants having thus discharged their initial burden so obviously the burden shifted to the respondentRailways that the deceased was not travelling with a journey ticket. But no such evidence could be put forth by the respondents. Hence, the finding of the learned tribunal in deciding the issue No.(1) against the applicants/claimants is perverse and liable to be set aside and in view of the remaining undisputed fact, a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- be awarded to the claimants/applicants.

¶42

Mr. Sunil Kumar- learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent on the other hand defends the impugned judgment and award. It is next submitted by Mr. Kumar that the Investigating Officer of the case in his cross-examination has stated that no journey ticket was recovered during the search of the body of the deceased. So, the same is sufficient to establish that the deceased was travelling without any journey ticket. Hence, the learned tribunal has rightly held that the deceased- Ramjit Soren was not a bonafide passenger. Hence, it is submitted that this appeal, being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶43

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

¶44

‘ Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim for compensation by the claimants and if the

¶45

¶46

M.A.No.316 of 2019

¶47

claimants are entitled for any compensation then what should be the amount of compensation?’

¶48

Now, coming to the facts of the case; perusal of the record reveals that the A.W.1 in his examination-in-chief filed in shape of affidavit has categorically stated that the said Ramjit Soren boarded the said train after purchasing the valid train ticket on 14.08.2016. In his cross-examination, the A.W.1 has stated that he got the information about the incident from the A.W.2 who was the co-passenger. In his cross-examination absolutely no question was put to him in respect of his testimony in his examination-in-chief that the deceased purchased valid train journey ticket from Chandrapura Railway Station to Gomia Railway Station and then boarded the train. Similarly, the A.W.2 Shyam Narayan Prasad in his examination-in-chief filed in the shape of affidavit has stated that he was the co-passenger of the deceased and the deceased after purchasing the valid train journey ticket from Chandrapura Railway Station to Gomia Railway Station boarded the train along with him and in his cross-examination he has stated that the ticket was purchased by paying Rs.25/-. In his cross-examination he has further stated that he saw the deceased falling down from the train. He was standing behind the deceased who was standing near the gate. In the cross-examination of the A.W.2 also, his testimony that the deceased boarded the train after purchasing valid journey ticket was not challenged by putting any question to him in this respect.

¶49

Md. Imtiyaz Ansari- R.W.1 has stated in his examination-inchief about the dead body of the deceased being found between Kilometer 43/16 – 43/17 in the middle of the track. R.W.1 went and saw that the head was severed from the torso in two pieces. R.W.2Rajendra Prasad in his examination-in-chief has stated that he was the Investigating Officer of the Case No.5/16 of Rail Police Station, Gomia. He has only stated that no ticket was recovered on search of the dead body. He has further stated that one plastic bag in which pant, shirt, towel and some paper was there and some paper flew away in the air. He has further stated that the deceased fell down from the 5363 from Gomia-Barkakan UP Passenger Train. He further stated in para-27 that

¶50

¶51

M.A.No.316 of 2019

¶52

the friend of deceased purchased a ticket and talked about coming to home of the deceased. The mother of the deceased informed the R.W.2Rajendra Prasad about purchase of ticket. In para-32, this witness stated that the deceased fell down as there were scratches on his hand also. The plastic bag was at a distance of 15-20 feet from the dead body. 14. Now, coming to the facts of the case as already indicated above, the claimants/applicants have discharged their burden of proving that the deceased was travelling with a railway journey ticket by filing affidavit. In the absence of their cross-examination on this aspect the said portion of their testimony remains unchallenged and is to be accepted as the truth. On the contrary, there is absolutely no evidence put forth by the respondent- Railway to suggest that the deceased was travelling without railway journey ticket. 15. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Railway Claims Tribunal committed a gross illegality by answering the issue No.(1) in the negative. Accordingly, the same is set aside and it is held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of Train No. 53359 Gomoh-Barkakana UP Passenger Train and he died due to untoward incident by falling from the train. As there is no dispute that the claimant/applicant No.1 is the father, claimant/applicant No.2 is the mother and claimant/applicant No.3 is the wife and these three are the only dependents of the deceasedRamjit Soren, hence, they are entitled to get the compensation. It is pertinent to mention here that the occurrence took place on 14.08.2016 i.e. before the notification i.e. G.S.R. 1165 (E) dated 22.12.2016 which came in to force on 01.01.2017. Since the occurrence of accident took place on 14.05.2016 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) paragraph-19 of which reads as under:-

¶53

“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 accident claim cases. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award of the Tribunal,

¶54

¶55

M.A.No.316 of 2019

¶56

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.”

¶57

Hence, this is a case where the claimants will be entitled to get compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

¶58

In view of the fact that the occurrence took place on 14.08.2016, the claimants altogether are entitled to get compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- only.

¶59

The sole point for determination is answered accordingly and in the affirmative. 18. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award is set aside and the claim application of the applicants is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay Rs.8,00,000/- to the claimants within four months from the date of this order.

¶60

In the result, this appeal is allowed on contest but under the circumstances, without any costs.

¶61

Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be sent to the learned tribunal concerned forthwith.

¶62

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶63

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 04^th of July, 2023 AFR/ Animesh

¶64

Parna Manjhi v. Union of India through the General Manager East Central Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parna Manjhi v. Union of India through the General Manager East Central 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

Somari Devi And Ors. Vs Mahadeo Oraon And Ors.

Hridesh Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Asmaul Haque Alias MD Asmaul Haque Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mritunjoy Goswami Vs State of Jharkhand

MD Sahban Vs Shanker Yadav

Mazrool Hoda Vs the State of Jharkhand