Bhanu Prakash Choudhary vs Union of India

Akhilesh Chandra, J.—Heard learned Counsel representing the parties and with their consent this appeal is being finally disposed of at this stage itself. This is an appeal preferred against the order of dismissal in Claim Application No. O.A. 00037 of 2001 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, on 30th January, 2012.

This is the case of the applicant-appellant that his son, namely, Sharad Kumar Choudhary, boarded a train at Bhagalpur Railway Station and while travelling accidentally fell down from the said train due to heavy rush of the passengers. He, immediately, shifted to Railway Hospital, Bhagalpur, but declared dead. And, thereafter, one case of unnatural death was instituted on the report of the Railway Doctor, indicating, death of unknown male. Subsequently, on getting information, the applicant-appellant along with others arrived at and identified the body and put forward claim of Rs. 4,00,000 as compensation.

The respondent appeared, filed one page written statement and contested the claim mainly on the ground of deceased not being a bona fide passenger and died in untoward incident.

Before the Claim Tribunal altogether four witnesses, including, the father of the deceased (applicant-appellant), were examined, wherein, none of them were eye-witness to the occurrence, but stated about the age and other relevant things of the deceased. Apart from the oral evidence by way of documentary evidence (Exhibits A-1 to A-4), copies of First Information Report, Memo, Final Report, Post-mortem Report, Post-mortem Certificate, Death Certificate and Case Diary, have also been produced vide Exhibits A-5 to A-11.

The Claim Tribunal appears disbelieving the Post-mortem Certificate on the ground of Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, issuing the certificate, as was not asserted with examination of post-mortem, but this much is not a ground to disbelieve the certificate, which is not only based on the contents of the Post-mortem Examination Report, but also there appears no contradiction. There is nothing to suggest that deceased was not identified as son of the applicant-appellant.

So far as the question of deceased being bona fide passenger is concerned, it is true, there is no reference about any ticket in the Inquest Report, which finds mentioned in the copy of Case Diary (Exhibit A-11). But there is clear reference of some papers found from the pocket of the deceased without any specification and there is no evidence adduced on behalf of the Railway on either of the point including deceased having no ticket. This point has already been considered and dealt by a Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal between Smt. Kaushalaya Devi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, , wherein, paragraph 5 of the judgment reads as such:

Railways Act provides prosecution of persons entering Railway Stations without valid journey ticket or platform ticket. That makes it abundantly clear that without a ticket, either for undertaking a journey or for the purpose of visiting the platform, no one is entitled to be within the precincts of a Railway Station. That the person was in the precincts of the Railway Station would, therefore, logically have a presumption that he had a ticket for him. That he did not have a ticket was obligatory on the part of the Railway Administration to prove...................

And likewise said case, in the instant matter also the Railway has not produced even a single witness or chit of paper to show that the deceased was a ticketless passenger. Further, the dead body was under the control of Railway Administration for a reasonable period, so the loss of ticket due to lapse of time cannot be ruled out.

The said decision has subsequently been followed in a case between Chandarik Sah @ Chandrika Sah and Kaushalya Devi Vs. The Union of India, , wherein, the amount of Rs. 4,00,000, as claimed, has been awarded with interest @ 6% per annum and this Court also finds no reason to refuse the claim. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is hereby allowed. The Railway (respondent) is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 (Rupees four lacs) to the appellant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of actual payment.