Jharkhand High Court: In the miscellaneous appeal filed against the judgment dated 19-06-2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench (‘the Tribunal’), whereby the appellants’ claim of seeking compensation was dismissed, Subhash Chand, J., stated that though in the written statement on behalf of the respondent, the defence was taken that the deceased had died while crossing railway station. However, the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent, it was found that the untoward incident took place by falling of the deceased from the running train in between Sahebganj to Pirpainti Station. Neither oral nor any documentary evidence was adduced on the respondent’s behalf to show that the deceased was not bona fide passenger. Initial burden was discharged on behalf of the appellants, and the burden of proof was shifted upon the respondent to prove the fact that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Thus, the fact that the deceased was a bona fide passenger was well proved.
The Court stated that appellants were entitled to compensation of Rs.8 lakhs along with interest of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition up to the date of order and from the date of order up to the date of actual payment 6% per annum.
Background
In the present case, a claim petition was filed by the appellants stating that on 07-06-2017, Appellant 1’s husband (‘the deceased’), after purchasing a valid second-class ticket for Sahibganj Junction to Pirpainti Station boarded in a second-class bogie of Howrah Gaya express train. When the train approached the Pirpainti Station, the deceased reached near the gate to alight at the station. Other people who had also alighted at the said station, gathered near the door due to which, there was intense jostling amongst the passengers.
While the train was running to Pirpainti station, the deceased lost his balance and accidentally fell from the running train. Thus, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The deceased’s wife along with the family members identified the dead body of the deceased and after postmortem the dead body was handed over and cremation was done.
The Tribunal after hearing the submissions of the counsel for the parties dismissed the claim petition vide judgment dated 19-06-2019, on the ground that the deceased was not the bona fide passenger on the date of incident. Thus, the present appeal was filed.
The Court had the following two points for determination:
Whether the deceased was bona fide passenger on the alleged date of incident?
Whether the dependents of the deceased were entitled to get compensation? If yes, then the quantum of compensation.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that though in the written statement on behalf of the respondent, the defence was taken that the deceased had died while crossing railway station. However, the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent, it was found that the untoward incident took place by falling of the deceased from the running train in between Sahebganj to Pirpainti Station. Thus, the fact that the deceased was a bona fide passenger was well proved.
The Court stated that even if the ticket was not recovered from his person while preparing the inquest report of the deceased, mere filing of the affidavit on behalf of the appellant was sufficient to raise the presumption that the deceased was bona fide passenger. Neither oral nor any documentary evidence was adduced on the respondent’s behalf to show that the deceased was not bona fide passenger. Initial burden was discharged on behalf of the appellants, and the burden of proof was shifted upon the respondent to prove the fact that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Thus, the first point of determination was decided in favour of the appellants, as the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the alleged date of incident.
The Court observed that in view of Notification dated 22-12-2016, with effect from 01-01-2017, in Rule 3(2) of Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the words “rupees four lakh”, was substituted with the words “rupees eight lakh”. Since, in this case the incident occurred on 07-06-2017, therefore the appellants were entitled to compensation of Rs.8 lakhs along with interest of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition up to the date of order and from the date of order up to the date of actual payment 6% per annum.
Thus, the Court set aside the judgment passed by the Tribunal and directed the respondent to pay the amount in the Appellant 1’s (the deceased’s wife) bank account within one month from the date of production/receipt of a copy of the present order.
[Kavita Devi v. Union of India, M.A. No. 143 of 2024, decided on 01-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellants: Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha, Advocate; Chainika, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ravi Prakash, C.G.C.
The post appeared first on .