Sulata Kanji & Anr. vs Union Of India

Biswaroop Chowdhury, J:

The appellant before this Court was an applicant in a case under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 read with Section 124-A of Railways Act 1989, and is aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 24-05-2023 passed by Vice-Chairman RCT/Kolkata in claim Application No. OA (IIu)/KOL/19/2022.

The case of the applicant before the Learned Tribunal may be summed up thus:-

On 23/10/2021 the victim who was a resident of Falta on early morning came to Diamond Harbour station along with his wife Sulata Kanji which was nearest and convenient railway station from his house and after purchasing a return Journey ticket from Diamond Harbour to Ghutiari Shariff, both of them boarded a local train from Diamond Harbour Station. He was on his way to Ghutiary Sariff to his relatives house and also for some personal work purpose. On their way they alight at Sonarpur Junction station to catch a train for Ghutiary Sariff as there is no direct train service available on that particular route from Diamond Harbour. After completion of his work and brief stay at his relative’s house they again came to Sonarpur Junction station and boarded a down Diamond Harbour local train from that station to reach his house at Diamond Harbour. As the train was very much crowded the victim and his wife could not board in the same compartment, the victim’s wife boarded adjacent compartment and the victim only managed to stand near the gate of the compartment where continuous jostling was going on and when the train reached at KM post no. 18/5-18/7 in between Sonarpur and Subhasgram fell down from running train and died at the place of occurrence. The victims wife who was in the adjacent compartment came to know from other passengers that some person has fallen down from the adjacent compartment. Subsequently when the train reached Diamond Harbour station she alighted from the train and waited for her husband but could not find him in the station after a lot searching she informed his family members about such incident and also informed his brother who was a resident near Sonarpur. In the meantime on being officially informed by the booking supervisor of Sonarpur railway station through a memo which was treated as first information report, investigating officer of Sonarpur GRPS reached the accident spot at about 17.15 hrs and prepared inquest report in the presence of available witness. The railway ticket was recovered from the body of the victim which was seized. Subsequently the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. After investigation investigating officer submitted Final report.

Pursuant to the filing of the application Respondent Railway Authority contested the case by filing written statement.

Learned Tribunal upon considering the evidence and upon hearing the Learned Advocates was pleased to dismiss the claim case by observing as follows:-

The appellant/applicant being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award passed by the Learned Tribunal has come up with the instant application.

Heard Learned Advocate for the appellant and learned Advocate for the respondent. Perused the evidence adduced and materials on record.

Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the Learned Tribunal gave much weightage to the statement of Debu Maity and Prasenjit Kanji before RPF which is internal investigating agency like investigator of insurance companies in motor accident claim cases. Such statement was given almost after 7 months after the incident which clearly violates clause 7(2) of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents Rules 2003’) which clearly mentioned that investigation by force/RPF must be completed within sixty days from the date of untoward incident. In the instant case incident occurred on 23/10/2021 and enquiry report submitted after six months after the schedule dates therefore veracity of RPF’s enquiry report lacks credence.

Learned Advocate further submits that journey ticket is verified by respondent railway itself which is reflected in verification letter in DRM Report.

Learned Advocate also submits that from the statement of Bhanu Senapati ASI/RPF who went to spot after incident it is clear GRPS found ticket in his presence. Also as per daily diary entry of RPF which is a part of DRM report, ticket recovered from accident spot is clearly mentioned in DRM report. Thus from the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) it is mentioned that ticket number which is also mentioned in the report prepared by GRPS and also filed in DRM report.

Learned Advocate further submits that Railway has never disputed, time of occurrence, place of occurrence recovery of dead body from railway track, thus railway accident stands admitted.

It is submitted that, the inquest report records deceased travelled with his wife, due to overcrowding both boarded different compartments the deceased accidentally fell between Sonarpur and Subhasgram, and relatives subsequently searched and found the body.

It is submitted that the final report of Police Authority nowhere concludes that it is a case of suicide, trespass, murder or natural death.

It is further submitted that Court can also take Judicial notice of the fact that sometimes it is not possible by the enquiry authority i.e. GRPS to write down and prepare and complete every document like inquest report and seizure list on the accident spot as in most of the cases accident spot is in such places where there are vast stretches of multiple railway tracks where trains continuously pass and standing in stones of track, sometimes in night it is not possible for the GRPS to note down everything on paper at spot and even finding and obtaining signature of local independent witness at accident spot where no body generally wants to sign police documents as witness in fear of legal trouble.

Learned Advocate also submits that accidental fall is established and the claimants are entitled to compensation.

Learned Advocate relies upon the following Judicial decisions:-

Rajni and Another. VS Union of India and Anr. Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19549 of 2024. Supreme Court of India.

Anima Sarkar VS Union of India. FMA. 1169 of 2021.

Learned Advocate for the respondent Railway Authority submits that seizure list was not prepared at the spot of the dead body neither it was prepared in accordance with law and as such inquest report and the seizure list were prepared in a doubtful manner and as such the evidence depends upon hearse.

Learned Advocate further submits that appellant alleged in the claim that she was travelling with the victim but she never produced any ticket nor present in the coach at the time of incident.

Learned Advocate also submits that the inquiry report duly approved by DRM was submitted wherein it was found that the incident was knock down and not fall from the running train.

Learned Advocate relies upon the following Judicial decisions:-

Rajni and Another VS Union of India and Anr. Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19549 of 2024.

Smt. Kum Kum Roy VS Union of India. 2017 SCC. Online Cal-198.

It is true that different types accidents takes place in the Railway area, but it is to be remembered that all accidents cannot be termed as untoward incident. It is only on the untoward incident the compensation can be awarded.

Thus before proceeding to decide on the issue it is necessary to understand the provision of compensation for untoward incident.

Section 124A of Railway Act 1989 provides as follows:-

Section 123(C) of the Railways Act 1989 defines untoward incident:-

It is the case of the applicants/appellant that the victim fell down from the crowded train.

It is held in different Judicial pronouncements that in claim for compensation on account of untoward incident it is always not possible for the family of the victim to arrange for witnesses who have seen the victim falling thus reliance is to be made on report of Police Authority and Railway Authority.

However in the instant case the applicant has examined herself as A.W.1 She has specifically stated about accompanying her husband on the date of accident She has further stated that from Ghutiary Shariff she came along with her husband to Sonarpur in a train and after getting down at Sonarpur she and her husband the victim herein boarded Diamond Harbour Local. She also stated that she boarded ladies compartment and her husband boarded a general compartment due to overcrowding. In the cross-examination also A.W.1 reiterated that on 23-10-2021 she was travelling in the same train by which her deceased husband was travelling. She also stated that she was in Ladies Compartment whereas her husband was in a general compartment. He was standing near the door of the compartment and due to rush of passenger he fell down. Thus from the specific statements of A.W.1 it is clear that she and her husband boarded the same train. Although there is no direct evidence of her husband falling down from the train but the evidence that the train being crowded is there and it is further stated that her husband was standing near the door of the compartment and due to rush of passengers he fell down.

Ordinarily a husband and wife will board the same compartment however due to certain exigencies they are compelled to board different compartments.

Crowd in general compartment is one of the reason why a lady is bound to board a ladies compartment while her husband boards general compartment sometimes standing at the door and sometimes hanging at the risk of his life.

The statement of A.W.1 that she and her husband boarded the same crowded local in different compartment and the victims body found at the railway track gives sufficient ground to draw inference of falling down from the train.

In this regard it is necessary to quote the observation of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Union of India VS Rajesh Kumar reported in AIR 2003 PondH-141. The Hon’ble Court in the said decision observed as follows:-

The case of the appellant is further strengthened by the report of the Police Authority under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the said report it was observed that the deceased along with his wife for Special Requirement went to Ghutiary Sariff by train and at the time of returning to Diamond Harbour by train the victim and his wife boarded separate compartment of same train due to overcrowding from Sonarpur station when the train departed from subhasgram station the wife of the person since deceased came to know that some person had fallen down from the running train due to pressure of overcrowding. After arriving at Diamond Harbour wife of the victim being unable to find her husband after a lot of searching returned to her home and informed her relatives over phone.

Relatives became suspicious and started searching along the track from Sonarpur, after arriving near Chanditala they found their relative’s dead body. As per their belief he fell down from running train and died.

Now the point for consideration is whether the victim was travelling with valid Railway Ticket.

Upon perusal of report of RPF in Entry 1387 dated 23/10/2021 it appears that the said personnel found that GRP/SPR conducted search with dom and found three parts of one Somsung Mobile and one railway ticket was found from T.shirt pocket but no seizure list was prepared in his presence.

Further in the ‘Detail Accident Report’ the ticket which was recovered from the passenger at the site is mentioned Bhanu Senapati ASI/RPF. POST/SRP in his statement before Ashutosh Kumar Gautam SI/RPF/Post/SRR(E.O) who has stated that on 13-10-2021 at 16.30 hrs he was deployed for duty as Duty Officer in C Shift i.e. from 14.00 hrs to 22.00 hrs as detailed by post Commander of RPF/Post/Sonarpur. During his duty period when he was on round at about 16.30 hrs an information received from SCNL/SDAH as well as PC/Sonarpur that one incident of knock down occurred in between Sonarpur and Subhasgram Railway station at km no-18/05. After receiving the information he along with CT/G Biswas o0f RDF/Post/SPR rushed to the spot and noticed one dead body of unknown male person aged about 35 years was lying near km. no-18/05 in between Sonarpur and Subhasgram Railway station. GRPS/Sonarpur officer and staff found one railway ticket no-UT M-38348998 from T.Shirt Pocket of deceased person and one samsung mobile phone in between KM no-18/05-18/07 but no seizure list was prepared by GRPS/SPR Officer in his presence. He also conducted an enquiry from local people and it could be learnt that the person was knocked down by unknown Train. Thus the detail accident report of police authority mentioning the ticket number recovered and the statement of Bhanu Senapati mentioning the ticket number which tallies goes to show that the victim was a bona fide passenger with valid ticket. When report of the Police Authority and statement of ASI RPF shows railway ticket was recovered the technicality in preparing seizure list should not be gone into. The Detail Accident Report statement of Bhanu Senapati, Report submitted by Police under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly establish that the deceased was a passenger with valid ticket. Upon perusal of the record it also appears that claimant Sulata Kanji had to appear before Ashutosh Kumar Gautam SI/RPF/POST/SONARPUR, and make statements and from the statement no contradictions appear.

Thus upon considering the evidence adduced and materials on record this Court is of the view that the appellants have been able to establish untoward incident as per Section 124A of the Railways Act 1989. Thus the appellants are entitled to the compensation as prayed for.

Hence this Appeal FMA-No-1886 of 2025 stands allowed. Judgment and Award dated 24-05-2023 passed by Vice-Chairman RCT/Kolkata in OA(IIu)/Kol/19/2022 is set aside. The appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 8 lakh along with interest @6% per annum from date of filing claim case till today. The Respondent Union of India shall deposit Rs. 8 lakh along with interest @6% per annum before Registrar General High Court at Calcutta. Such deposit shall be made within 8 weeks from the date of communication of this Order.

The appellants will be entitled to withdraw the compensation upon compliance of necessary formalities.

Learned Advocate for the respondent prays for stay of this order and the same is refused.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, should be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.