Shri. Ramsharan S/O Dheluram Dhruw And Others v. Union Of India, Thr. Its General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2025:BHC-NAG:1629 1/7 21.Judg.fa.1005.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1005 OF 2024 1.
Ramsharan s/o Dheluram Dhruw Aged about 44 Years, Occupation - Nil;
2.
Smt. Savitribai Ramsharan Dhruw Aged about 39 Years, Occu - Household;
3.
Ku. Shashi Ramsharan Dhruw Aged about 19 Years, Occu - Student;
All R/o Durrabandha Bijradhi, Baloda Bazar, District Bhatapara (C.G.), 493118.
... APPELLANTS V E R S U S Union of India Through its General Manager, South-East Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... RESPONDENT Mr. R. G. Bagul, Advocate for Appellants.
Ms. N. G. Chaubey, Advocate for Respondent/Union of India.
CORAM
: ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 13, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT .
Heard Mr. R. G. Bagul, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Ms. N. G. Chaubey, learned Counsel for the Respondent/Union of India. With
2/7 21.Judg.fa.1005.2024.odt consent of the learned Counsel for both sides, matter is taken up for final hearing at admission stage.
2.
The Appellant Nos.1 and 2 in the present Appeal are parents and Appellant No.3 is sister of the deceased Bhagwat Kumar. They filed the present Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, assailing the Judgment and Order dated 1/1/2024 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Claim Application No. OA(IIu)/NGP/80/2021, seeking compensation on account of death of Bhagwat Kumar in an untoward incident while travelling from a passenger train on 25/2/2020. They are Original Applicants before the learned Tribunal. 3.
They contend that on 25/2/2020 while the deceased was travelling from Bhandara Road to Gondia with a valid railway ticket, he fell down from running train in between Koka-Bhandara Upline Pole No. 1066/3-5 and suffered severe injuries, due to which he died on the spot. It is their case that he was a bona fide railway passenger, who died in an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, and therefore, being parents and sister of the deceased, they are entitled to receive compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, as provided under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990.
3/7 21.Judg.fa.1005.2024.odt 4.
The Respondent opposes the claim contending that the deceased did not die in an untoward incident involved in Railways Act. There was no eye-witness to the incident and that the Appellants have failed to discharge initial burden that deceased had died in railway accident. My attention is drawn to the spot panchanama in order to contend that the body parts of the deceased were badly crushed and scattered in different places, which indicate that he did not die in an untoward incident involving Railways. The Respondent would urge that the Appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
5.
Having heard the respective submissions, following points arise for my consideration.
(i) Has deceased Bhagwat Kumar died in an untoward incident, within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 ? (ii) Are the Appellants entitled to receive compensation on account of death of deceased Bhagwat Kumar ?
AS TO POINT NOS.1 AND 2 :
6.
It is undisputed that dead body of deceased Bhagwat Kumar is found along side the railway track. The body parts are found between two tracks i.e. Upline and Downline in between Koka-Bhandara Upline Pole No.
4/7 21.Judg.fa.1005.2024.odt 1066/3-5. The Appellants have stated that on the fateful day the deceased was travelling from Bhandara Road to Gondia. The railway ticket recovered from the deceased is found to be valid, upon enquiry by the railway authority. The spot of incident is far away from the residence of the deceased, who was resident of Chhattisgadh. Only because the body parts of the deceased were scattered at different places after the accident, it will not be possible to conclude that he did not fall from a running train, as is contended by the Appellants. The material on record is sufficient to hold that initial burden has been discharged by the Appellants to demonstrate that deceased Bhagwat Kumar died in a railway accident.
7.
It will be pertinent to mention here that the dead body was found by two railway officials, who were engaged in doing maintenance work of the railway tracks. The evidence of Mukesh Diwakar Meshram (RW-1) shows that on 25/2/2020 he was on track patrolling duty at KM 1066 to 1068/35 along with one Vishal Badole. He states that he and the said Vishal Badole reached at KM 1068/01 at about 24.00 hours, at that time they did not find any person in Downline, however, shortly thereafter a train had passed and while returning, they found a body of unknown person at the track at around 01.30 hours. Such evidence of the witness gives credence to the case of the Appellants.
5/7 21.Judg.fa.1005.2024.odt 8.
The learned Tribunal has held that the nature of injuries recorded in the postmortem report established that the deceased did not fall down from the running train, however, there was hit by a running train. The learned Tribunal has failed to consider that the deceased had a valid railway ticket, which was found on his person after his demise. The accident had occurred at late hours in the night. Railway officials, patrolling the track, have found the dead body in late night hours. All these facts, if cumulatively considered, will demonstrate that the initial burden is discharged by the Appellants. The Respondent has failed to discharge its burden that the deceased did not die in an untoward incident, within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act.
9.
The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained in the light of undisputed evidence on record. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that Judgment and Order passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be quashed and set aside and the Appellants are entitled to receive compensation on account of death of Bhagwat Kumar in an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. In the result, I pass the following order.
6/7 21.Judg.fa.1005.2024.odt
ORDER
A) The First Appeal is allowed.
B) The Judgment and Order dated 1/1/2024 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Claim Application No. OA(IIu)/NGP/80/2021 is quashed and set aside. C) The Appellant No.3 is sister, who is married, and therefore, she is entitled to receive compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 25/2/2020 i.e. date of accident till realization of entire amount.
D) The Appellant Nos.1 and 2, who are parents of the deceased, are entitled to receive compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- each i.e. total Rs.7,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 25/2/2020 i.e. date of accident till realization of entire amount. E) The Appellants are directed to furnish bank account details to the Chief Claims Officer, South-East Central Railways, Bilaspur (C.G.) on or before 28/2/2025.
F) The Respondent is directed to transfer the amount of compensation along with accrued interest in the bank accounts of the Appellant Nos.1 to 3 on or before 30/6/2025.
G) Parties to bear their own costs.
7/7 21.Judg.fa.1005.2024.odt 10.
First Appeal is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.
(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) vijaya Signed by: Mrs. V.G. Yadav Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 18/02/2025 17:54:30