Shoshank Chaudhary Vs the Union of India through the General Manager Eastern Railway — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Shoshank Chaudhary Vs the Union of India through the General Manager Eastern Railway — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondents (Union of India/Eastern Railway) directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with 7.5 per cent interest from the date of filing of the claim till actual payment; impugned Tribunal judgment quashed and set aside; appeal allowed and disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the case falls under the jurisdiction of the Ranchi Bench of the Tribunal. +4 more

Ratio / Principle

The Tribunal's finding that the deceased de-boarded a moving train was an error of record: this court perused the DRM Report and it does not suggest that the deceased de-boarded the moving train.

Key takeaways

The very basis of the Tribunal's rejection of the claim is not sustainable and beyond the record; accordingly the impugned judgment dated 13.02.2020 in O.A.(IIu)/RNC/30/2019 is quashed and set aside.ratio¶¶22
The remaining issues being settled in favour of the claimant entitling compensation as per the law, the miscellaneous application is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay Rs.8,00,000/- with 7.5 per cent interest from the date of filing of the claim till actual payment.ratio¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Railway accident compensation — Miscellaneous Appeal (M.A. No.184 of 2021), High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Rajesh Kumar, J.), decided 09.09.2024. The Chandigarh Railway Claims Tribunal (Circuit Bench at Ranchi) had dismissed, by judgment dated 13.02.2020 in O.A.(IIu)/RNC/30/2019, the claimants' application for Rs.8,00,000/- compensation for the death of the father of the claimants in an accident of 25.09.2018, accepting that he was otherwise a bona fide passenger but rejecting the claim on the premise that he de-boarded a moving train, which is not an untoward incident. The High Court perused the DRM Report on which that finding rested, found it to be an error of record since the report does not suggest de-boarding from a moving train, held the basis of rejection unsustainable and beyond the record, quashed and set aside the Tribunal's judgment, and, the other issues standing settled in the claimants' favour, directed the Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway to pay Rs.8,00,000/- with 7.5 per cent interest from the date of filing of the claim till actual payment.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No.184 of 2021

1. Shoshank Chaudhary, aged about 23 years, S/o-Late Bundel Choudary.

2. Jhan Devi, Aged about 41 Years, W/o-Late Bundel Choudary

3. Bitu Choudhary (Minor), Aged about 16 Years, S/o-Late Bundel Choudhary represented through his mother/natural guardian, All Resident of village-Dhakdhaka, P.O.-Kasati, P.S.-Devipur, Distt.Deoghar (Jharkhand) …. …. Appellant(s)

Versus

The Union of India through the General Manager Eastern Railway, Kolkata, having its office at Koilaghat Street, P.O. + P.S. – Koilaghat, Kolkata (W.B.)

…. …. Respondent(s) ----

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Santosh Kr. Jha, Adv. Mr. Sumit Gautam, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Shiv Kr. Sharma, Sr. Panel Counsel ----

09/Dated: 09^th September, 2024

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present miscellaneous appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 13.02.2020 passed in Case No.O.A.(IIu)/RNC/30/2019 by the Hon’ble Member (Judicial) Chandigarh Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, Circuit Bench at Ranchi, whereby the learned tribunal has dismissed the claim application of the applicants seeking compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest from the date of filing of the claim application.

3. It appears that the accident has taken place in which the father of the claimant has died on 25.09.2018. The Tribunal has framed the following issues.

(i) Whether this case comes under jurisdiction of Ranchi Bench?

(ii) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger as alleged?

(iii) Whether the deceased had died due to alleged untoward incident?

(iv) Whether the applicant or other dependents of the deceased are entitled to get compensation?

(v) Relief ?

4. It appears that the other factors have not been disputed save and except the fact that the deceased has de-boarded the moving train. Since deboarding from a moving train is not untoward accident accordingly claim of the applicant has been rejected. It has been found that otherwise the deceased was bona fide passenger.

5. It appears that the said finding has been recorded on the basis of DRM Report. This court has perused the DRM Report and it is nothing but error of record. DRM Report does not suggest that the deceased has de-boarded the moving train.

6. Thus the very basis of rejection of the claim is not sustainable rather is beyond the record. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 13.02.2020 passed in Case No.O.A.(IIu)/RNC/30/2019 by the Hon’ble Member (Judicial) Chandigarh Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, Circuit Bench at Ranchi, is hereby quashed and set aside.

7. Since the other issue has been settled in favour of the claimant entitling him for the compensation as per the law, the present miscellaneous application is hereby allowed and the respondents are directed to pay Rs.8,00,000/- with 7.5 per cent from the date of filing of claim till actual payment.

8. With above direction, the present miscellaneous appeal stands allowed and disposed of.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Amar/Uploaded

Page | 2

M.A. No.184 of 2021