Dismissed¶11

Surendranath Khuntia v. Union of India

Orissa HC13 May 2024FAO/712/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FAO No.712 of 2014; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Justice B. P. Routray; decision 13.05.2024; appellant-claimant Sri Surendranath Khuntia@Suresh Sahu (counsel Ms. D. Mohapatra) v. Union of India and others (counsel Mr. A.K. Mohanty, C.G.C.); deceased Gyanaranjan Khuntia@Babu Sahu, Painter at Mumbai; death 12.08.2008, local train between Matunga and Sion, KM No.10/18, head injury; Railway Claims Tribunal Bhubaneswar Bench, OA No.117 of 2009, judgment 13.10.2014; untoward incident; bona-fide passenger; monthly seasonal ticket and Railway I-Card; inquest report signature by A.W.2; DRM statutory report; knocked down while crossing track; no compensation under the Railways Act; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None ¶11

Surendranath Khuntia Vs Union of India — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the death of the deceased occurred in an untoward incident, i.e., whether the deceased travelled as a bona-fide passenger of a train so as to make the claimants eligible for compensation, the Tribunal having refused compensation by disbelieving such death. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

With no direct evidence produced from the claimants' side regarding the deceased's journey as a bona-fide passenger in any train, and the statutory report saying the deceased was knocked down while crossing the railway track, considering the preponderating materials brought on record no conclusive opinion can be derived in favour of the claimants to treat the deceased as a bona-fide passenger of the train.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Recovery of a monthly ticket from the pocket of the deceased does not satisfy the purpose, because mere finding of the dead-body on the railway track would not suffice to treat the deceased as a bonafide passenger of a train.

¶8

Key takeaways

This Court upheld the Tribunal's finding, observing that learned Tribunal rightly concluded that the claimants failed to establish the death of the deceased in an untoward incident.ratio¶8
On identification: A.W.2 identified the deceased during the post-mortem by signing on the inquest report, confirmed his signature during cross-examination and stated he identified the dead-body for post-mortem examination; therefore no doubt remains that the deceased is Gyanaranjan Khuntia@Babu Suresh Sahu, resolving the Railways' identity objection in the claimants' favour.ratio¶9
Since the claimants failed to establish the death of the deceased in an untoward incident, they are not entitled to any compensation under the Railways Act, vindicating the Tribunal's refusal of compensation.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

FAO No.712 of 2014, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Justice B. P. Routray), order dated 13.05.2024: claimant-appellant Sri Surendranath Khuntia@Suresh Sahu v. Union of India and others. Appeal directed against judgment dated 13.10.2014 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench (OA No.117 of 2009), refusing compensation for the death of Gyanaranjan Khuntia@Babu Sahu on 12.08.2008 in a local train between Matunga and Sion stations, Mumbai. Upholding the Tribunal, this Court held that with no direct evidence of the deceased's journey as a bona-fide passenger and the statutory report recording a person knocked down while crossing the track, no conclusive opinion favoured bona-fide passenger status; recovery of a monthly ticket and of the dead-body on the track did not suffice; the Tribunal had rightly observed failure to establish death in an untoward incident. The identity objection was resolved: A.W.2's signature on the inquest report and its confirmation in cross-examination left no doubt the deceased was Gyanaranjan Khuntia@Babu Suresh Sahu. Claimants held not entitled to any compensation under the Railways Act; appeal dismissed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.712 of 2014

¶2

…. Sri Surendranath Khuntia@Suresh Appellant Sahu

¶3

Ms. D. Mohapatra, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

…. Union of India and others Respondent Mr. A.K. Mohanty, C.G.C-Union of India

¶6

CORAM: JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

13.05.2024

Order No.

Heard Ms. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Appellantclaimant and Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned C.G.C. for Union of India- Respondent No.1.

¶12

Present appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment dated 13.10.2014 passed in OA No.117 of 2009 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar, wherein learned Tribunal has refused to grant any compensation by disbelieving the death of the deceased in an untoward incident.

¶13

The case of the claimants is that, the deceased, namely, Gyanaranjan Khuntia@Babu Sahu, died on 12.08.2008 while travelling in a local train between Matunga and Sion Railway Station at Mumbai. The deceased was working as Painter at Mumbai and staying there. The monthly seasonal ticket was

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 15-May-2024 15:46:33

¶17

recovered from his pocket at the time of inquest along with Railway I-Card.

¶18

As per the Railways, the dead-body of the deceased was recovered from the railway track at KM No.10/18 between Matunga and Sion Railway Station with sustenance of head injury. But as per the report of the Station Master, one unknown male person while crossing the railway track was knocked down by a down local train. Therefore, the Railways denied the claim stating that, the death of the deceased in an untoward incident is not established and secondly, it is not established that the deceased is the same person as Babu Sahu @ Gyanaranjan Khuntia.

¶19

The claimants have examined two witnesses, Viz.A.W.1 and A.W.2 and adduced several documents like copies of Police papers, post-mortem examination report, the monthly ticket, Voter I-Card, etc.

¶20

On the other hand, the Railways did neither examine any witness nor adduce any documentary evidence. However, they filed a copy of the DRM’s statutory report.

¶21

The evidence of A.W.2 reveals that, he had been staying with the deceased at Mumbai during the occurrence period. On 12.8.2008 when the deceased was travelling to Thane in a local train, he accidentally fell down from the running train and died. But this A.W.2 does not say that he saw the deceased travelling in any local train. A.W.1, the father of the deceased, is not a witness

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 15-May-2024 15:46:33

¶25

to the occurrence and he was staying in Odisha at the time of occurrence.

¶26

On the other hand, it is seen from the DRM’s statutory report that, the Station Manager has reported about death of the deceased by knocking down by a local train. In the circumstances, when no direct evidence has been produced from the side of the claimants regarding his journey as a bona-fide passenger in any train and at the same time, the report says about knocking down of the deceased while crossing the railway track, considering the preponderating materials brought on record, no conclusive opinion can be derived in favour of the claimants to treat the deceased as a bona-fide passenger of the train. For this, finding of a monthly ticket from the pocket of the deceased would not satisfy the purpose because mere finding of the dead-body on the railway track would not suffice to treat the deceased as a bonafide passenger of a train. Therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly observed that the claimants have failed to establish the death of the deceased in an untoward incident.

¶27

So far as the other contention regarding identification of the deceased is concerned, it is found that, A.W.2 has identified the deceased during the post-mortem by signing on the inquest report. He has confirmed his signature on the inquest report during his cross-examination and further has stated that, he identified the dead-body for post-mortem examination. Therefore, no doubt remains on his statement that the deceased is Gyanaranjan Khuntia@Babu Suresh Sahu and the evidence of A.W.2 in this

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 15-May-2024 15:46:33

¶31

regard to identify the deceased as Gyanaranjan Khuntia@Babu Suresh Sahu remains confirmed.

¶32

As stated above, since the claimants have failed to establish the death of the deceased in an untoward incident, they are not found entitled for any compensation under the Railways Act.

¶33