Madhabika Das And Others vs Union Of India

B. P. Routray, J

Heard Mr. P.C. Kar, learned counsel for the Appellants-claimants and Mr. B.K. Padhi, learned C.G.C. for Union of India-Respondent.

Present appeal by the claimants is directed against judgment dated 10.12.2018 passed in O.A. No.132 of 2015 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar, wherein learned Tribunal has refused to grant any compensation by disbelieving the case of the claimants.

The case of the claimants is that, the deceased was working at Ludhiana as a Carpenter. On 13.7.2012, he travelled to Ludhiana from Bhubaneswar in Hirakud Express Train with valid journey Ticket No.008502371 and PNR No.611-1306490. While travelling in the train, he accidentally fell down near Damoh (M.P.) Railway Station at KM No.1126/26 on 14.7.2012. His dead-body was noticed lying near the track with head decapitated. Sager GRPS U.D. Case No.34/2012 was registered by local GRP, inquest was held and the dead-body was sent for post-mortem examination.

The claimants examined two witnesses on their behalf and adduced the copies of Police papers prepared in the U.D. Case, and the journey ticket in support of their contention. The railways did not examine any witness and only filed the copy of DRM’s statutory report on their behalf.

Learned Tribunal disbelieved the case of claimants holding that severance of head simplicitor cannot be possible in accidental fall from running train and therefore, denied compensation to the claimants.

The facts of recovery of the dead-body from railway track with head decapitated from the body remains undisputed. As per post-mortem report, the cause of death is cardio respiratory shock due to injury to the head and neck. It is important to note here that according to the post-mortem report, no other injury was noticed on the dead-body except severance of head from the body. Admittedly, the dead-body was found in Platform No.2 on 15.7.2012 and as per the railway records, Hirakud Express crossed Damoh Railway Station through Platform No.1 on 14.7.2012. Therefore, the circumstances with regard to finding of the dead-body in Platform No.2 without any other injury on the dead-body do not support the contention of the claimants regarding accidental fall of the deceased from Hirakud Express.

No direct witness is there to the alleged incident. A.W.2 has though stated that he saw the deceased boarded in Hirakud Express on 13.7.2012 along with others, but his evidence is insufficient to sustain the contention of claimants regarding fall of the deceased from the running train. What is important to see is the circumstances in absence of any direct evidence in order to bring the case within the ambit of an untoward incident under Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act. Having a valid journey ticket, though the same is denied by the Railways in the present case, is not enough to satisfy the contentions about death in any untoward incident. Therefore, keeping in view the circumstances, particularly absence of any injury other than severance of head, and recovery of the dead-body from another Platform than the Platform through which Hirakud Express passed, the contentions of the claimants regarding death of the deceased in any untoward incident is not established. As such, I do not see any infirmity in the conclusion of learned Tribunal to reject the claim application.

In view of the discussions made above, the appeal is dismissed.

………………………............