AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.P. Sandesh, J
CAV JUDGMENT
This miscellaneous first appeal is filed challenging the order dated 08.03.2016 passed in OA II U 41/2013 on the file the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (for short ‘Tribunal’).
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent is absent and arguments on the respondent’s side is taken as nil.
The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 13.07.2012 at about 11.45 a.m., husband of the appellant one G V Girish was travelling from Hindupur to Ananthapur being a bonafide passenger in a train and the train was overcrowded, the said Girish was forced to stand near the door of the compartment and due to jerk and jolt of the train, he fell down loosing his balance from the running train at K.M. No.102/00-100 in between Hindupur-Mulugu station and sustained severe injuries and died at the spot.
The respondent appeared and filed the statement of objections denying the fact that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and incident did not occur due to fall from the train since there was no detention of train and no guard or driver of the train reported any such untoward incident to the nearest Station Master. Hence, prayed the Tribunal to dismiss the claim petition.
Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following Issues:
Whether there was any untoward incident as is defined under the provisions of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989?
Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger?
Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased?
Whether the applicants are entitled for any relief and interest as prayed for in the application?
The Tribunal considering the pleadings of the parties, allowed them to lead their evidence. In order to prove the case, the wife of the deceased examined herself as AW1 and also examined one more witness as AW2 and got marked the documents as Ex.A1 to A10. On the other hand, respondent not led any evidence but got marked the DRM investigation report as Ex.R1. The Tribunal after considering the material available on record the dismissed the claim petition in coming to the conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger since there is no untoward incident taken place and hence, the claimant is not entitled for any relief. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed before this Court.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim petition and passed an arbitrary order and fails to appreciate both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. The counsel would vehemently contend that the deceased was traveling to Ananthapur to meet his friend Nagaraju for seeking financial assistance. There was no occasion to disbelieve the evidence of AW1 and AW2 and the respondent not produced any material to show that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, thus, the Tribunal committed an error in relying upon only the document at Ex.R1. The evidence of AW2 is very clear that he only took the deceased and dropped him to the railway station and he witnessed purchasing the railway ticket by the deceased and nothing is elicited from his mouth to disbelieve his evidence. But the Tribunal comes to an erroneous conclusion that AW1 not spoken anything about the evidence of AW2 and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, cannot consider the claim petition. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the documents i.e., FIR, Final Report and Inquest Report have not been considered by the Tribunal and erroneously comes to the conclusion that the deceased was not traveled in the train. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also considering the grounds urged in the appeal memo as well as on perusal of the material available on record, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court is:
Whether the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim petition and whether it requires interference?
The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 13.07.2012 at about 11.45 a.m., the deceased was travelling in the train from Hindupur to Ananthapur and accidentally, he fell down from the running train at K.M. No.102/00-100 situated in between Hindupur-Malugu station. The deceased had informed in the house that he is going for work and he took Rs.300/- from his friend by name Venkataramudu to go to Ananthapur to seek financial assistance from another friend by name Nagaraju at Ananthapur and thus, while travelling in the train, the said untoward incident was occurred. The appellant who is the wife of the deceased, reiterated the same in her examination-in-chief and she was cross-examined and she says that her husband was working in a printing press and he left the house at 9.00 a.m. and the printing press is located at Hindupur. But it is elicited that she does not know the name of the place or village where her husband fell down on the date of incident i.e., on 13.07.2012 but she deposed that she had received the information about the death of her husband at 10.00 p.m. The appellant also relied upon the document at Ex.A1-FIR and the same was registered under UDR No.44/2012 based on the message of on duty Station Master – K B Raja Rao, Hindupur Railway Station and Ex.A9 also discloses that on 13.07.2012 at 12.00 hours, B Narayana S/o Narasaiah, Keyman G.No.01 PKD section noticed a male dead body aged about 35 years at K.M. No.102/00-100 between HUP-MLU by side of track and requested to take necessary action. The other document is Ex.A2-PM report which discloses the nature of injuries and cause of death. The other document is Ex.A3 – Final Report drawn by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hindupur Railway Station who has concluded the case as accidental death. The other document is Ex.A4-Inquest Report which discloses the history of the alleged incident stating that the accident occurred in a particular place. On the other hand, the respondent did not choose to examine any witnesses but got marked the DRM investigation report at Ex.R1 wherein the Investigating Officer has concluded that on enquiry, it has come to light that there is no evidence of eye-witness to say that the deceased person has traveled in the train and none of them noticed the same and did not find any journey ticket and hence, report is submitted stating that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.
The Tribunal having considered the material available on record comes to the conclusion that there is lot of discrepancies in the evidence before the Tribunal since AW1 not spoken anything about the evidence of AW2 i.e., AW2 had come and picked the deceased and dropped him to the railway station at Hindupur and AW1 says that her relatives informed her about the alleged accident only after two to three days hence, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that there is no corroborative evidence to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger at the time of the incident even though AW2 brought before the Tribunal as a witness who deposed that he only dropped the deceased to the Hindupur railway station and he saw the deceased purchasing the ticket. The evidence of AW1 is not credible. Thus, the Tribunal disbelieved the claim of the appellant and dismissed the claim petition.
Having considered the reason given by the Tribunal and also on perusal of the material available on record particularly, the evidence of AW1 and AW2, it discloses that though AW1 did not disclose the fact that AW2 came and picked the deceased and the same is not a fundamental infraction. AW1 categorically stated that the deceased did not attend to his duty but he informed her that he is going to Ananthapur to seek financial assistance from his friend and in corroboration to this evidence, AW2 also specifically deposed that he met him since he had been to his house and he requested him to drop to Hindupur railway station and accordingly, he dropped the deceased at around 11.00 a.m. and he witnessed purchasing of ticket from the deceased i.e., Yeshwanthpur-Vijayawada passenger train ticket and also stated that he was at the counter along with the deceased. But in the cross-examination, nothing is elicited with regard that he was present while boarding the train.
It is important to note that the Station Master had informed about the death of the deceased that one male person dead body aged about 35 years found at railway track K.M.NO.102/11-100 in between Hindupur-Malugu Station. It is also important to note that incident took place at about 11.45 hours and information received immediately i.e., about 12.35 hours and FIR also registered wherein it discloses that B Narayana, Keyman noticed a male dead body aged about 35 years and information was given to the Station Master and hence, there was no any delay in informing about the alleged incident and the same is evident in Ex.A1. Ex.A2 is the PM report which clearly discloses that there are multiple injuries and head injury and death is due to hemorrhage and shock, about 24 to 34 hours. The final report is at Ex.A3 and the said report is very clear that it is an accidental death. In the report it is mentioned that deceased was travelling in the train and he was fell down from the running train accidentally and died. It is also specific that due to accidental fall from the running train, the deceased died and the said report also discloses the nature of injuries and cause of death. These documents have not been disputed by the respondent before the Tribunal. Inspite of that, the Tribunal committed an error in not relying upon these documents but comes to the conclusion that there is a discrepancy in the evidence of AW1 and AW2 and there is no corroborative evidence to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger at the time of the incident though AW2 deposed that he only dropped the deceased to the Hindupur railway station and he saw the deceased purchasing the ticket and the deceased had boarded the train and the said fact cannot be deposed by AW1 who is not the eye-witness and AW2 is the eye-witness. Not deposing the said fact by AW1 is not a ground to dismiss the claim petition. Hence, the Tribunal committed an error in coming to such a conclusion and the reasoning given by the Tribunal requires interference. The Tribunal cannot expect mathematical niceties while considering the claim petition when AW2 specifically deposed before the Tribunal regarding dropped the deceased to the railway station and he purchased the ticket. Thus, the Tribunal erroneously dismissed the claim petition and it requires interference.
In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The miscellaneous first appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment dated 08.03.2016 passed in OA II U 41/2013 by the Tribunal is hereby set aside. Consequently, the claim application is allowed.
(iii) The appellant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a., from the date of filing the claim application till its realization. It is made clear that after applying the rate of interest, if the final figure is less than Rs.8,00,000/-, then the appellant shall be entitled to Rs.8,00,000/-.
(iv) The amount of compensation be satisfied by the respondent within a period of eight weeks.
(v) No order as to costs.