Allowed

Shivani Das v. Union of India

Orissa HC19 Jul 2023FAO/81/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa allowed an appeal against a Railway Claims Tribunal order refusing compensation for a deceased who fell from a running train. The court set aside the Tribunal's finding, holding that circumstantial evidence regarding the victim's residency and trajectory established a valid journey and death due to an accident, directing compensation payment.

What did the court decide?

Union of India directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with 6% interest or Rs.8,00,000/-, whichever is higher, in equal shares to appellants.

Shivani Das Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 19-Jul-2023 16:23:17

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶4

FAO No.81 of 2020

¶5

Shivani Das & Anr.

¶6

…. Appellant

¶7

Ms.D.Mahapatra, Advocate

-versus-

Union of India

…. Respondent

Ms.B.L.Tripathy, CGC

CORAM:

SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

Order No.

ORDER
19.07.2023

The matter is taken up through hybrid mode

¶18

Heard Ms.D.Mahapatra, learned counsel for the claimantAppellant and Ms.Tripathy, learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent- Union of India.

¶19

Present appeal by the claimants is directed against impugned judgment dated 6th November, 2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A.(IIU) 139 of 2016, wherein learned Tribunal has refused to grant any compensation in favour of the claimants by disbelieving their case.

¶20

The case of the Claimants is that the deceased while travelling in Corramandal Express train from Chennai to Howrah on 20^th June 2016 fell accidentally from running train in the night between 20^th /21^st June, 2016 in between Bhusandapur-Kalupadaghat railway station. He

¶21

Page 1 of 4

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 19-Jul-2023 16:23:17

¶24

was travelling on the strength of a 2^nd Class journey ticket and the ticket was lost in course of incident.

¶25

The undisputed facts remain that the dead body of the deceased was found lying on the track at KM No.494/9-10 on 21^st June 2016 at 7 A.M. The UD Case was registered and dead body was sent for postmortem examination after inquest. Similarly, the RPF also made Station Dairy Entry No. 1137/D dated 21^st June, 2016.

¶26

Two witnesses viz. A.W.1 & A.W.2 were examined from the side of the Claimants. A.W.2 claims to have seen the deceased boarding Corramandal Express at Chennai on 20^th June 2016. Learned Tribunal has discarded the evidence of this alleged eye witness on the ground that since he was a witness to the inquest report held on 22^nd June 2016, it is impossible on his part to be at Chennai on the same day. Learned Tribunal did not treat the deceased as a bona fide passenger of the train in absence of production of any valid journey ticket and consequently rejected the claim for compensation.

¶27

It is seen from the post-mortem examination report that multiple injuries including fracture of skull, ribs, leg and arms were noticed on the dead body that was found lying on the up railway track. It is true that A.W.2 signed on the inquest report stating his presence at the time of inquest and therefore, the approach of Tribunal to disbelieve him is found appropriate. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly discarded the evidence of A.W.2 from consideration.

¶28

Even the evidence of A.W.2 is discarded out from consideration, the circumstances are found satisfying in favour of contentions of the Claimants. The finding of dead body from the railway track and sustenance of injuries of such nature consistent with

¶29

Page 2 of 4

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 19-Jul-2023 16:23:17

¶32

railway accident itself justify the probability of death of the deceased concerning railway accident. It is true that no journey ticket could be produced by the Claimants, but that cannot be taken as the sole ground to discard the contention of the Claimants regarding bona fide journey of the deceased in the train in question. Again looking to the circumstances it reveals that the place of accident is in-between Bhusandapur-Kalupadaghat railway station in the State of Odisha when the deceased was a resident of Nandigram in the District of Medinapur in West Bengal. It is stated by the Claimants that the deceased was working as a labourer at Chennai. In the statutory report of the DRM as produced by the Railways before the Tribunal, nowhere is it explained as to how the dead body of the deceased came on the railway track and they have also not explained the steps taken by the Railways after entering Station Dairy No. 1137/D dated 21^st June 2016. The Railways have though examined one witness viz. R.W.1, but said witness did not say anything about his knowledge either relating to lying of the dead body on the railway track or any other reason thereof to reveal anything that the death of the deceased is unconnected to any railway accident.

¶33

In such view of the matter and the circumstances seen in favour of the contention of Claimants regarding valid journey of the deceased in Corramandal Express train on that relevant date, their contentions are found established on the touchstone of principles of preponderance of probability. Thus, the conclusion of learned Tribunal to disbelieve the death of the deceased unconnected to any untoward incident is set aside and it is held that the Claimants have satisfactorily established their contention regarding travelling of the

¶34

Page 3 of 4

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 19-Jul-2023 16:23:17

¶37

deceased in the train in question as a valid passenger and his death in an untoward incident concerning the journey.

¶38

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the Respondent-Union of India is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @6% per annum form the date of accident or Rs.8,00,000/-, whichever is higher, within a period of four months from today, which shall be disbursed in favour of the Claimants– Appellants in equal proportion by keeping 50% of the shares fall due to each of the Claimants in fixed deposits in any nationalized bank separately for a period of 6 years.

¶39

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

¶40

An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶41

( B.P. Routray) Judge

¶42

S.Das

¶43

Page 4 of 4

Shivani Das v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivani Das 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

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

Union of India Vs Sarat Ch.Nayak

Rebati Behera Vs Union of India

Brahmananda Jena Vs Ashok Jena

Ranjan Gagrai Vs State of Odisha

M/S.Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Parvati Nayak