Appellant appealed against Railway Claims Tribunal's order rejecting a compensation claim for her deceased son's accidental death on a train. The High Court upheld the rejection, finding the claim was not bona fide based on the investigation report.
The appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed; the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal is affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.911 of 2010 ====================================================== Manju Devi, wife of Sri Rajendra Prasad, resident of Chhatradhari Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Bhagwan Bazar, District-Saran ( Chhapra) .... .... Applicant/ Appellant Versus The Union of India through the General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur (U.P.) .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Mohan Murari, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER -----------------
5 24-09-2012 Heard Sri Krishna Mohan Murari, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Anil Singh, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the Respondent/ Union of India through the General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur (U.P.).
The present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,1987( hereinafter referred to as the “ Claims Tribunal Act”) has been preferred against an order dated 27.08.2010 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna( hereinafter referred to as “ Claims Tribunal”) in Case No.OA00100/2000. By the said order, the learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim petition, which was filed on 22.05.2000 for claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-( four lacs) on the ground that the son of the claimant , namely, Gautam Kumar was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward
Patna High Court MA No.911 of 2010 (5) dt.24-09-2012
2 / 6
incident.
It was pleaded before the Claims Tribunal by filing an application for compensation that on 28.09.1999, she got some information that her husband, who was traceless, was seen at Siwan Bazar and, as such, her son Gautam Kumar proceeded for Siwan on 29.09.1999. He purchased railway ticket for going to Siwan Station from Chapra Station by Train No.5207 (Amrapali Express). According to the claimant, while her son was boarding train, due to heavy rush and jerk he fell down and he received serious injuries. Thereafter, he was carried to Railway Hospital, Chapra and finally, he was referred to Patna Medical College Hospital. On 01.10.1999 during treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. In respect of said accident, U.D. case vide U.D.Case no.31 of 1999 was registered on 15.10.1999. The claimant on the ground that her son was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident claimed Rs.4 Lacs as compensation before the Claims Tribunal. The claimant herself was examined as AW-1, whereas one Manish Kumar was examined as AW-2. The claimant filed statement on oath, which was marked as Ext.A1 and statement on oath of one Manish Kumar was filed, which was marked as Ext.A2. Besides statements on oath, the claimant also brought on record (i) copy of memo marked as Ext.A3 (ii) copy of
Patna High Court MA No.911 of 2010 (5) dt.24-09-2012
3 / 6
fardbeyan as Ext.A4 (iii) copy of First Information Report as Ext.A5 (iv) Final Report as Ext.A6 (v) copy of inquest report as Ext.A7 (vi) Death Certificate as Ext.A8 (vii) copy of case diary as Ext.A9 (viii) Post-Mortem Examination Report as Ext.A10 and other relevant documents. Before the Claims Tribunal, by way of filing written statement, the Respondent/ North Eastern Railway opposed the claim and a plea was taken that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger nor railway ticket was either found at the time of preparing inquest report or it was ever produced. AWs 1 and 2 were also cross-examined by the Respondent/ Railway. After hearing the parties, the learned Claims Tribunal was of the opinion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the claimant failed to prove its case. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal rejected the claim petition, which has been assailed in the present appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that AW2 in his statement on oath as well as in his evidence has categorically stated that in his presence, the deceased had purchased railway ticket and while he was boarding train, the accident had occurred. He submits that only on the ground of non-production of railway ticket, it cannot be held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. According to learned counsel for the appellant, once
Patna High Court MA No.911 of 2010 (5) dt.24-09-2012
4 / 6
the accident occurs at the Railway Station, onus is on the railway to disprove the case. In this case, save and except filing vague written statement, the Respondent/ North Eastern Railway has not produced anything on record to suggest that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and, as such, it has been pleaded that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed serious error in passing the impugned order and the same requires interference by this Court.
Sri Anil Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent/ General Manager, North Eastern Railway has vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant. He submits that the case has been initiated on the basis of fardbeyan of maternal grand-father of the deceased, which was recorded at Patna Medical College Hospital on 01.10.1999. He submits that it is true that accident had occurred at Chapra Railway Station and thereafter he was referred to Patna Medical College Hospital, but the fact remains that in the fardbeyan of the informant, who was none else but the maternal grand-father of the deceased, it has been specifically asserted that the deceased was a tea-vendor and he was selling tea in the train. It has been stated that while he was boarding train for selling tea, he met with an accident and received injuries. He succumbed to the injuries on 01.10.1999. It was further argued that on the basis
Patna High Court MA No.911 of 2010 (5) dt.24-09-2012
5 / 6
of fardbeyan, in the present case an U.D. case was registered on 15.10.1999. Even during investigation, further statement of the informant was got recorded and he again stated samething, which was stated in his fardbeyan. According to learned counsel for the Respondent/ Railway, at belated stage in a well-designed manner, one Manish Kumar was introduced and thereafter, a story was developed that the deceased in search of his father was going to Siwan and he had purchased railway ticket and while he was boarding train, accident had occurred. It was submitted that in the case, no railway ticket was produced and the fact that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger has been corroborated by fardbeyan and re-statement of the maternal grand-father of the deceased. This fact was also found true during investigation and, as such, in final report i.e. Ext. A6, it has been indicated that the deceased was a tea-vendor and accident had occurred, while he was boarding train for selling tea. He has further submitted that in cross-examination during trial, the evidence has come that the deceased was not having any licence for selling tea on running train. This fact cannot be disputed that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.
Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. In the fardbeyan
Patna High Court MA No.911 of 2010 (5) dt.24-09-2012
6 / 6
(Ext.A4), the maternal grand-father of the deceased had made it clear that the deceased was a tea-vendor and accident had occurred, while he was entering into Amrapali Express for selling tea. If the fardbeyan as well as investigation report is taken into account, the story made out in the claim petition appears to be concocted and fabricated. The final report i.e. Ext. A6 also corroborates the same. The Court is of the opinion that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed no error in rejecting the claim case and, as such, the order requires no interference.
Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J)
NKS/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the claimant proved that the deceased was a bona fide passenger entitled to compensation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manju Devi
Union of India
Rakesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
