Dismissed

Union of India v. Sarat Ch.Nayak

Orissa HC18 Jul 2023FAO/458/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal against a Railway Claims Tribunal order awarding Rs. 4,00,000/- to the heirs of a deceased passenger. The appellant argued the deceased lacked a valid ticket. The court dismissed the appeal, holding absence of a ticket does not disprove a bona fide journey when corroborated by eyewitnesses and police reports.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the Union of India against the compensation order of the Railway Claims Tribunal was dismissed.

Union of India Vs Sarat Ch.Nayak — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.458 of 2013

¶2

Union of India

¶3

…. Appellant Mr. P.S. Nayak, Senior Panel Counsel

¶4

-versus-

¶5

…. Sarat Chandra Nayak and another Respondents Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2

¶6

CORAM: JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

18.07.2023

Order No.

Heard Mr. P.S. Nayak, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Appellant-Union of India and Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2-claimants.

¶12

Present appeal is directed against judgment dated 19.7.2013 passed in O.A. No.214 of 2006 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar, wherein learned Tribunal has directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @6% in equal share in favour of the claimants from the date of claim application, i.e. 22.11.2006 on account of death of the deceased, namely, Avaya Ranjan Nayak.

¶13

Mr. Nayak, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the AppellantUnion of India submits that the deceased did not possess any valid journey ticket and therefore, he was not a bonafide passenger of the train at the time of accident.

¶14

The circumstances reveal that, the dead body was found near the railway track, i.e. Loco Electric North Yard Sheet of New

¶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: 19-Jul-2023 10:37:41

¶18

Delhi railway station and the travelling of the deceased in Train No.H.N.G.2 EMU on 14.6.2006 has been categorically stated by both the witnesses, particularly A.W.2-the eye-witness. His evidence has been amply corroborated from the copy of the FIR as well as the Police investigation report. When all such circumstances establish the contention of the claimants regarding death of the deceased due to fall from the running train, the nonfinding of journey ticket from possession of the dead body would not stand on the way of claimants from establishing their contention about death of the deceased in an untoward incident. Further, it is well settled that mere non-recovery of journey ticket from possession of the dead body would not disprove the case claimants regarding bonafide journey of the deceased in the train.

¶19

Thus, no merit is seen in the contention of railways to disturb the finding of the learned Tribunal.

¶20

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

¶21

( B.P. Routray) Judge

¶22

B.K. Barik

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 19-Jul-2023 10:37:41

¶25

Page 2 of 2

Union of India v. Sarat Ch.Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Sarat Ch.Nayak

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

The D.M., M/S. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Bishnupriya Behera

Madan Mohan Nayak Vs M/S.O.S.T.C.

N.I.Co.Ltd Vs Pravakar Naik

Manager,O.I.Co.Ltd. Vs Kamlesh Saraph and Ors.

Rebati Behera Vs Union of India

Gandhi Majhi Vs State of Odisha