Dismissed

Karunakar Dewbedi v. Union of India

Orissa HC6 Jul 2023FAO/325/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Orissa High Court dismissed an appeal against a Railway Claims Tribunal award refusing compensation for a passenger who allegedly fell onto the tracks. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding of no merit due to severe lacunae regarding the absence of eyewitnesses, inquest reports, or official accident records.

What did the court decide?

Appeal against the Railway Claims Tribunal award refusing compensation is dismissed.

Karunakar Dewbedi Vs Union of India — Orissa HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.325 of 2017

¶2

Sri Karunakar Dewbedi

¶3

…. Appellant Ms. D. Mohapatra, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

…. Union of India Respondent

¶6

Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, C.G.C. for Union of India

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

06.07.2023

Order No.

Heard Ms. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Appellantclaimant and Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, learned C.G.C. for Union of India- Respondent.

¶13

Present appeal by the claimant, who is the husband of the deceased namely Mamata Dewbedi, is directed against judgment dated 23.06.2017 of Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar, passed in Case No.OA/IIU/99/2013, wherein learned Tribunal has refused to grant any compensation by disbelieving the case of the claimants.

¶14

According to the claimant-Appellant, his wife while travelling in a local train from Baleswar to Nabdeep Dham railway station via Kharagpur, on the way at Nabdeep Dham railway station, she accidentally fell down from the train at 10.00 a.m. on 2.4.2013. She was immediately taken to the local hospital and then referred to NRS Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, where she

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 06-Jul-2023 18:35:14

¶18

succumbed to the injuries. A general class ticket bearing No.30257357 dated 01.04.2013 was produced by the claimant.

¶19

It is seen that no eye-witness either to the accident or travelling of the deceased in the train on the given date has been produced before the learned Tribunal. A.W.1, the only witness examined on behalf of the claimant, is not a direct witness to the occurrence. Neither any inquest report nor post mortem report was produced before learned Tribunal. The nature of injuries resulting death of the deceased is thus remains unknown. It also remains unknown that who shifted the deceased to the hospital and where she was

¶20

lying.

¶21

On the other hand, no such incident of fall of any passenger at Nabdeep Dham railway station has been reported to the station authorities or noticed by any official. The claimant is also unable to say the name of the train in which the deceased was travelling. As such, keeping in view all such lacunae, learned Tribunal has rightly concluded that the death of deceased concerning any untoward incident is not established. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal to interfere with the impugned award.

¶22

The appeal is dismissed.

¶23

( B.P. Routray) Judge

¶24

B.K. Barik

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 06-Jul-2023 18:35:14

¶27

Page 2 of 2

Karunakar Dewbedi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karunakar Dewbedi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs Tasil Minja

The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Laxmipriya Parida @ Sarojini Parida

Divisional Manager,Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Kabitanjali Sahu

Sudhakar Pati Vs Damodar Pati

Bhikari Kanhar@Kanra Vs Union of India

The Manager, Iffco Tokio G.I.Co. Ltd. Vs Basanti Barad