Rakib Uddin vs Union Of India

Heard Mr. D.C.K. Hazarika, learned counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Mr. G. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, N.F.Railway,

appearing for the respondent.

This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 09.05.2012passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, in Claim

Application No.OA-II-114/2010 whereby the claim lodged by the appellant was dismissed.

The facts of the case, as projected in the Memo of Appeal, in a nutshell, is thatMd. Haddy Kura Ali alias Karim Boks i.e. the father of the

appellant had died in an untoward incident on 10.03.2010 while travelling between Kaithalkuchi and Nalbari Railway Station in the Abodh Assam

Express train. Accordingly, claim petition seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.4 lakhs was filed by the appellant.

The Railways had contested the case by filing written statement.

Based on the pleadings, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal :-

“1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in which the incident occurred?

Whether the incident is covered under Section 124A of the Railways Act,1989?

Whether the applicant is entitled for the compensation, as applied for?

Relief and order?â€​

During trial, both parties have led evidence. The journey ticket No.58315193which was found in the possession of the deceased was recovered and

produced as Ext-R4. It appears from the materials on record that the driver of the 2423 Down Rajdhani Express had noticed the body of the

appellant’s father lying near the Railway track and had informed the Station Superintendent of Kaithalkuchi Railway Station who in turn had

informed the In-charge of GRPF, Nalbari. Accordingly, Rangiya GRPS U/D Case No.13/2010Â dated 10.03.2010 was registered and thereafter, the

police went to the spot and recovered the body. An inquest was conducted on the site whereafter, inquest report was prepared and the body was sent

for post mortem.

The issue Nos.1 to 3 were taken up together for consideration by the learned Tribunal and after considering the materials on record, all the three

issues were decided against the appellant. Taking note of Ext-R4, which shows that the ticket recovered from the deceased was not sold from

Kishanganj Railway Station, the learned Tribunal had recorded a finding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. The learned Tribunal had

also disbelieved the testimony of AW-2 and ignored the findings of the investigating officer in Ext-A7 to the extent that the deceased was travelling by

Abodh Assam Express by holding that it was a mere opinion of the officer.

From a meticulous examination of the impugned judgment and order, I am ofthe view that the learned Tribunal has failed to record proper findings

of fact with regard to Issue Nos.1 and 2 which are the vital issues warranting adjudication in this proceeding. Despite the ticket having been recovered

from the deceased which contained the date of journey and the sector of travel, there is no specific finding as to why such ticket should not be held to

be valid merely because it was found to have been purchased from a station other than Kishanganj Railway Station. The learned Tribunal has also

failed to record any finding as to how the deceased was found lying near the Railway track and the circumstances under which the body was

recovered. In the absence of proper factual finding on the above issues, I am of the opinion that the claim petition cannot be decided in the proper

perspective.

In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order dated 09.05.2012stands set aside. The matter is remanded back for fresh decision of the

claim petition by recording proper finding of facts with regard to Issue Nos.1 and 2 on the basis of the evidence available on record.

  Registry to send back the LCR expeditiously.