Allowed

Rebati Behera v. Union of India

Orissa HC18 Jul 2023FAO/70/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the Railway Claims Tribunal's refusal to grant compensation. The court held that evidence established the deceased fell from a running train and entitles the claimants to compensation under established principles.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest directed to be deposited in fixed deposits for the appellants.

Rebati Behera Vs Union of India — Motor Accident Claims | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

FAO No.70 of 2020

¶3

Smt. Rebati Behera and Others …. Appellants

¶4

Ms. D. Mohapatra, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Union of India, represented through General Manager, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar

¶7

…. Respondents

¶8

Mr. A.K. Mohanty, Central Government Counsel

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER 18.7.2023

Order No.

The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

Heard Ms. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the claimant – Appellants and Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned Central Government Counsel for Respondent – Union of India.

¶16

Present appeal by the claimants is directed against impugned judgment dated 6^th January, 2019 of the Members (Judicial & Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar passed in OA/(IIU)/2016/134, wherein the tribunal has refused to grant any compensation by disbelieving the case of the claimants.

¶17

As per the claimants, the deceased while travelling in PuriTalcher Passenger Train from Puri to Cuttack on 2^nd April 2016,

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

accidentally fell down near Kathajodi Railway Station and died at the spot.

¶20

Two witnesses, viz. A.W.1 and A.W.2 were examined from the side of claimants and they also adduced several documents including inquest report and post mortem examination report in support of their case. On the other hand Railways did not examine any witness but only relied on the statutory report of the DRM.

¶21

It is seen that A.W.2 has stated in his evidence that he along with the deceased was travelling in the train in question after purchasing ticket from Puri station and the deceased fell down while standing near the door. But the tribunal discarded his evidence as unreliable saying that this witness did not report about the incident before Railway Authorities and was not present at the time of inquest. But it is seen that this witness in his cross-examination has stated to have informed the GRP personnel at Cuttack Railway Station about the incident and he has signed as a witness in the inquest report at column-9. The tribunal has completely overlooked this aspect.

¶22

The dead body of the deceased was found at KM No.411/42 in between Baranga to Cuttack Railway Station near Kathajodi Bridge. In the post mortem examination that was conducted on the next day of the incident, it is opined by the doctor that the death is due to hard and blunt trauma and is instantaneous due to complete dissection of spinal column. Thus the nature of injuries seen on the dead body is found consistent with the fall from running train.

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

So far as non-production of journey ticket is concerned, it is the consistent case of claimants that the same was lost in course of incident. Moreover, the statement of A.W.2 to the effect that he was travelling with the deceased in the train after purchasing ticket from Puri Railway Station is not rebutted in his cross-examination and that too no evidence was adduced from the side of the Railways.

¶25

In the above circumstances it is thus established on the touchstone of preponderance of probability that, the deceased died due to fall from running train while traveling in Puri-Talcher Express. As such, the claimants, who are parents and widow of the deceased, are found entitled for compensation as per scheduled amount.

¶26

In the result, the impugned order of the tribunal is set aside and the appeal is allowed. In terms of the principles decided in the case of Union of india Vs- Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 , the Respondent – Union of India is directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (four lakhs) to the claimant – Appellants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of accident or Rs.8,00,000/-, whichever is higher, within a period of four months from today. The entire compensation amount including interest shall be disbursed in favour of all the Appellants by keeping 50% of shares fall due to each Appellant in fixed deposit in their names in any Nationalized bank, as per choice of the Appellants, for a period of six years.

¶27

The copies of evidences and other documents as produced by Ms. D. Mahapatra in course of hearing are kept on record.

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

12. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶30

( B.P. Routray) Judge

¶31

M.K.Panda

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Senior Steno Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 25-Jul-2023 11:18:54

¶34

Page 4 of 4

Rebati Behera v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rebati Behera 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

Cases cited

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.

Union of India Vs Sarat Ch.Nayak

Gandhi Majhi Vs State of Odisha