Dismissed

Nukalu Payikala v. Union of India

Orissa HC13 Jul 2023FAO/78/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a Railway Claims Tribunal order refusing compensation, the High Court of Orissa succeeded claimants failed to rebut eyewitness evidence showing the deceased was trespassing on the track when struck by a goods train, thus confirming the Tribunal's finding that he was not a passive passenger.

What did the court decide?

None. The compensation claim is rejected based on the finding that the deceased was trespassing.

Nukalu Payikala Vs Union of India — Orissa HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.78 of 2022

¶2

Smt. Nukalu Payikala and others

¶3

…. Appellants Ms. D. Mohapatra, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

…. Union of India Respondent Mr. A. Pradhan, C.G.C. for Union of India

¶6

CORAM: JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

13.07.2023

Order No.

Heard Ms. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Appellantsclaimants and Mr. A. Pradhan, learned C.G.C. for Union of IndiaRespondent.

¶12

Present appeal by the claimants is directed against judgment dated 09.12.2021 passed in OA(IIU)/187/2018 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar, wherein learned Tribunal has refused to grant any compensation holding that the deceased was a trespasser in the railway track.

¶13

The case of the claimants is that the deceased was initially travelling in Falaknuma Super-fast Express Train on 9.5.2017 from Piduguralla to Ichchapuram and at Visakhapatnam Railway station he missed said train while got down for taking tea. His copassenger though left in the Falaknuma Express, but the deceased being missed the same came in Visakha Express on the following

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 14-Jul-2023 17:39:12

¶17

day from Visakhapatnam towards Ichchapuram. While coming in Visakha Express, he accidentally fell down from the running train, rolled down to the nearby track and crushed under the wheels of a goods train that was passing on the track at that time.

¶18

Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Appellants-claimants submits that when the deceased was held as a bonafide passenger and his death by the goods train is established, the death concerning an untoward incident cannot be denied and thus, learned Tribunal has committed error to reject the claim by disbelieving the claimants.

¶19

It is seen from record that, the travelling Ticket No.29367749 dated 9.5.2017 of the deceased is in respect of Falaknuma Express and claimant’s case is that the deceased having missed Falaknuma Express subsequently boarded in Visakha Express. Therefore, production of ticket in respect of Falaknuma Express to justify the deceased as a bonafide passenger is of no help to satisfy the contentions of claimants to treat the deceased as a bonafide passenger for Visakha Express.

¶20

A.W.1 is the widow of the deceased and examined on behalf of the claimants. In addition to the evidence of A.W.1, the claimants have also relied on the copies of FIR and other Police papers. On the other hand, R.W.1 is the Loco-pilot of the same goods train involved in the incident.

¶21

A.W.1 has no direct knowledge about the incident. She did not see the deceased travelling in Visakha Express and the incident

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 14-Jul-2023 17:39:12

¶25

took place on 10.5.2017 at 9.00 A.M. between Vizianagaram and Korukunda Section at KM No.819/27-29 on the up-track. It is the consistent evidence of R.W.1, the Locopilot of the goods train that he saw the deceased trespassing on the railway track at that particular point and came in contact with the goods train that was passing at that time. Such direct evidence of R.W.1 as the eyewitness of the occurrence is never rebutted. Said R.W.1 has also given same statement before the Railway authority for statutory investigation by the DRM. Thus analyzing the evidences adduced from both sides, it is seen that the direct evidence adduced by R.W.1 being remained unassailed, the contentions of the claimants to justify accidental nature of death of the deceased involving untoward incident is disproved. Accordingly, it is held that the claimants have failed to prove their case regarding death of the deceased in any untoward incident. Accordingly, the finding of the learned Tribunal is confirmed.

¶26

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. ( B.P. Routray) Judge

¶27

B.K. Barik

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 14-Jul-2023 17:39:12

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Nukalu Payikala v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nukalu Payikala 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

Balaji Das Vs Laxmikanta Das

Manager, Legal Claims, M/S.Reliance Gic Ltd. Vs Lilirani Pradhan

Divisional Manager,New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs Sabita Jena

Soumya Ranjan Behera Vs Union of India

D.M.,O.I.Co.Ltd. Vs Tarini Ch.Gauda andANR

Saraswati Sahu Vs Raghunath Gurjar