PARVATI DEVI vs CCM /LAW

1 BEFORE THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH.

Case No.OA(IIU)/RNC/50/2021 Check List No.2901210006 Date of incident : 08.07.2018 Date of filing : 24.09.2020 Date of judgement: 20.10.2023 1.

Parvati Devi, aged about 61 years, Late Bhade Singh Residents of Village/Mohalla : Bendi, PO- Gajhandi, PS- Chandwara, Dist- Koderma, Pin Code- 825409 (Jharkhand) ---------- Applicant Versus Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur . ---------- Respondent CORAM : Sri Dhruv Singh, Member (Technical)/RCT/Ranchi.

Sri Pramod Kumar, Ld.

Counsel for the Applicant.

Sri Sudhir Kumar Srivastava, Ld.

Counsel for the Respondent.

JUDGEMENT 01.

This original application has been filed by the mother of the deceased to claim compensation under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal’s Act, 1987 claiming compensation from Railway Administration for alleged death of Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh (hereinafter called the deceased) in an alleged untoward incident during alleged journey by train.

2 02.

Brief facts of the case: It is alleged that on 08.07.18 the deceased Dinesh Kumar Singh was travelling by Jammu Tawi Express Train no.

131510 UP from Gujandih to Lucknow on a valid journey ticket along with Sri Vaijnath Singh, S/o Bllo Singh and during the course of journey, Dinesh Kumar Singh accidentally fell down from the running train near Dilwa Station, sustained injuries and died at the spot.

The co-passenger Vaijnath Singh cried but train did not stop and thereafter Vaijnath Singh alighted from the train at Paharpur Station and informed Station Master, Paharpur Station about the accident and also the family of the deceased.

Police registered UD case no.

71/18 dated 09.07.2018 lodged with GRP Gaya Junction and applicant being dependent is entitled to the compensation.

It is alleged that the ticket was lost during incident.

The deceased was unmarried son of the applicant.

03. icant.

03.

The applicant had been filed the condonation petition along with the OA which was condoned by this Tribunal on 07.07.2021.

04.

Respondent’s reply: Respondent appeared and filed its Written Statement.

In Written Statement Respondent denied its liability, bonafide passenger status, untoward incident and travel and the applicant put to strict proof by the documentary evidence.

That nobody has seen the occurrence but the statement of Annexure-I, Para-VII of the claim application is totally false.

It is totally false to 3 say that the death of the deceased was due to heavy rush, gross negligence of the administration.

It is prayed for dismissal of the case.

05.

Issue: From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 13.07.2021 by the Tribunal for determination:- 1.

Whether this case comes under the jurisdiction of Ranchi Bench?

2.

Whether Dinesh Kumar Singh was a bonafide passenger ?

3.

Whether any train accident as defined under Section 123(c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989 happened with train no.13151 UP by Jammu Tawi Express Train on 02.07.2018?

4.

Whether the applicant or other dependents of the deceased are entitled to get compensation?

5.

Relief.

06.

Applicant’s Evidence: The applicants in support of their case have filed the certified photo copies of the following documents :- (1) Station Memo (2) FIR- (3) Inquest Report (4) Dead body Challan (5) PM report (6) Final Report (7) photo copy of Dependency certificate (8) Aadhar card of Parvati Devi (9) Aadhar card of Dinesh Kumar Singh (10) Bank Passbook of Parvati Devi.

In this case applicant has failed to step into the witness box to prove her case but alleged 4 co-passenger Sri Vaijnath Singh appeared as AW-1.

He was cross-examined by the Ld.Counsel for the respondent and discharged.

07.

Respondent’s Evidence: The Respondent Railway on the other hand have filed the DRM’s statutory investigation report along with other relevant documents but did not adduce any oral evidence.

08. dence.

08.

At the time of final hearing Ld.

Counsel for the parties argued as under :- “Ld.

Counsel for the Respondent argued that the applicant has not turned up for Applicant’s evidence despite several opportunities and AW-2 has admitted during cross-examination that he was not travelling with the deceased.

He also admitted that he had signed on the statement given to the GRP as he wanted his Bhabhi and other family members to receive compensation.

The Counsel for the Respondent also argued that this is a fabricated case fit to be dismissed.

09.

The Counsel for the applicant did not have any counter to the arguments by the Counsel for the respondent and admitted that AW-2 during his cross- examination admitted to the facts argued by the Ld.

Counsel for the respondent.” 10.

F I N D I N G S: I have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, material made available on record, evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant as well as documentary evidence filed by the respondent and heard the arguments of both the sides.

My findings on the aforesaid issues are as under:- 5 11.

Issue No.1 :- The applicant is residing at Village/Mohalla : Bendi, PO- Gajhandi PS- Chandwara, Dist- Koderma, Pin Code- 825409 (Jharkhand) and the incident took place near Dilwa station.

The place of residence of the applicant and the place of incident, both falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

As such this Tribunal has the territorial jurisdiction to try, entertain and determine this present O.A.

Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the applicant.

12.

Issues No.2 & 3:- Both the issues are taken up together being inter-connected.

It is the unique case where the claimant has not stepped into the witness box but the witness co-passenger appeared in the witness box and deposed about travel and incident in terms of pleadings made in the OA. in the OA.

Before proceeding further I would like to reproduce statements of applicant Parvati Devi recorded during the course of the DRM’s Enquiry iwNus ij eaS ikoZrh nsoh] ifr Lo- Hkkns flag irk mijksDr fcuk Hk; ncko vFkok yksHk ykyp ds LosPNk iwoZd lp lp c;ku djrk gwW fd e`rd fnus’k dqekj flag esjk NksVk csVk Fkk ftldk mez yxHkx 22 oiZ Fkk rFkk og etnwjh djrk Fkk ckn esa mldh fnekxh gkyr [kjkc gks x;k o fof{kIr jgus ds dkj.k b/kj m/kj Hkkx tkrk Fkk ckn esa ?kj esa Hkh vk tkrk Fkk ftldk geyksx bykt o >kM- Qwad djk;s FksA fnukad 08-07-2018 dks esjs ?kj dk rhu eqxhZ tks fdlh dkj.ko'k ej x;k Fkk ftls esjk yMdk fnus’k dqekj flag vkWxu esa ej dj iM-k gqvk rhuksa eqxhZ dks ns[kdj fopfyr gks x;k rFkk mldh rch;r [kjkc gks x;k o mlh le; mYVh djus yxk ftls mldh 6 iRuh }kjk mldh lQkbZ o Luku djk;k x;kA fQj FkksM-h nsj ckn og fopfyr gksdj ?kj ls ckgj vkdj taxy dh rjQ Hkkxus yxk mlds Hkkxus ds Øe esa ?kj esa ekStwn eSa rFkk fnus’k dh iRuh eqUuh nsoh mldks idM-us dh dksf’k'k fd;s ysfdu og taxy dh rjQ Hkkx x;kA bl laca/k esa esjk cM-k yM- dk dSyk’k flag tks gSnjkckn esa jg dj dke djrk Fkk mldks crk;k x;k ckn esa gekjs o mldh iRuh }kjk [kkstchu fd;k x;k ysfdu jkr o va/ksjk gksus ds dkj.k mls [kkst ugha ldsA vxys fnu fnukad 09-07-2018 dks lqcg esa fdlh xzkeh.k }kjk geyksxksa dks lwpuk fn;k x;k fd vkidk yM-dk fnus’k tks ukFkxat LVs’ku ds ikl fdlh Vªsu ls /kDdk yxdj mldk nksuksa iSj dVk gqvk gS o ’kjhj {kr&fo{kr gksdj jsyos ykbu ds fdukjs e`r iM-k gqvk gSA lwpuk ikdj geyksx ’ko dks ns[kus ?kVukLFky ukFkxat LVs’ku ds ikl igqWps rks irk pyk fd rc rd thvkjih@x;k ds iqfyl inkf/kdkjh ds }kjk ’ko dks mBkdj vfxze dk;Zokgh gsrq x;k ys tk;k x;k FkkA ckn esa xzkeh.k rFkk gekjs ifjtu yksx thvkjih x;k tkdj ’ko dk igpku fd;s tks e`rd fnus’k dqekj flag dk gh ‘’ko Fkk tks fdlh vKkr Vªsu ls /kDdk yxus ds dkj. us ds dkj.k gh mldh e`R;q gqbZ gSA ckn esa iqfyl inkf/kdkjh x;k ds }kjk ‘’ko dk iksLVekVZe rFkk lHkh dk;Zokgh i'pkr ‘’ko dks gekjs ifjtu dks lkSaik x;k ftls gekjs ifjtu yksx ’ko ysdj fgUnw jhfr fjokt ds lkFk ‘’ko dk nkg laLdkj fd;k x;kA ;gh esjk c;ku gSA 13. and statement of one Sri Kailash Singh brother of the deceased Dinesh Kumar Singh is as under:- iwNus ij eaS dSyk’k flag] ifr Lo- Hkkns flag irk mijksDr fcuk Hk; ncko vFok yksHk ykyp ds LosPNk iwoZd lp lp c;ku djrk gwW fd e`rd fnus’k dqekj flag esjk NksVk HkkbZ Fkk og etnwjh dk dke djrk Fkk o ckn esa og fnekxh :Ik ls fof{kIr gks x;k Fkk ftldk geyksx bykt o >kM- Qwd djk;s FksA fnekx fof{kIr gksus ds dkj.k og dHkh dHkh b/kj m/kj Hkkx tkrk Fkk rFkk ckn esa ?kj vk Hkh tkrk gSA ?kVuk ds le; eSa ?kj ls ckgj dke djus gSnjkckn x;k gqvk Fkk rFkk gSnjkckn esa gh jgdj 7 dke dj jgk Fkk A fnukad 08-07-2018 dks “kke esa xzke osanh ?kj ls esjh ekW o iRuh ds }kjk esjs eksckbZy esa Qksu djds crk;h fd fQj ls fnus’k dk rch;r [kjkc gks x;k gS rFkk og mYVh Hkh fd;k o ?kj dk rhu eqxhZ Hkh ej x;k gS blds i'pkr fnus’k ?kj ls Hkkx dj taxy dh rjQ pyk x;kA lwpuk ikdj eSa viuh iRuh o ekW dks Qksu ls gh cksyk fd mls b/kj m/kj rFkk taxy dh rjQ tkdj [kkstchu djksA lqcg fnukad 09-08-2018 dks esjh iRuh }kjk lwpuk feyk fd fnus’k ?kj ls Hkkxdj o jsyos ykbu dh vksj pyk x;k Fkk og fdlh Vªsu }kjk jsyos ykbu ij /kDdk yxus ls e`r voLFkk esa iM-k gqvk gSA lwpuk ikdj eSa gSnjkckn ls ?kj rhu fnu i'pkr vk;k o NksVk HkkbZ ds ftldk nkg laLdkj o czã Hkkst esa ’kkfey gqvkA 14.

And one statement of Sri Anuj Soren, Line man iwNus ij eSa vukst lksjsu] firk Lo- f’koyky lksjsu irk mijksDr fcuk Hk; ncko vFok yksHk ykyp ds LosPNk iwoZd lp lp c;ku djrk gwW fd fnukad 08-07-2018 dks eSa rFkk esjk tksM-hnkj fefFkys’k dqekj ;kno nksuksa dh fM;wVh ukFkxat LVs’ku fdyksehVj la-414 ls fdyksehVj la- 412@1-3 rd le; 22-00 cts ls fnukad 09-07- 2018 dks lqcg 06-00 cts rd ds fy, VªSd isVªksfyax fM;wVh ij dk;Zjr FkkA eSa rFkk esjk tksM-hnkj nksuksa yksx fnukad 08-07-2018 dks le; 22 dks le; 22-00 cts ukFkxat LVs’ku ls fM;wVh vkWu djkdj VªSd isVªksfyax djrs gq, fdyksehVj la-412@1-3 rd x;sA ckn esa fdyksehVj la-412@1-3 ls ukFkxat LVs’ku dh rjQ okilh ds nkSjku fnukad 09-07-2018 dks le; yxHkx 00-30 cts fdyksehVj la-413@33&35 ij igqWps rks ns[ks fd ,d O;fDr ftldh mez yxHkx 32 oiZ gksxh e`r voLFkk esa jsy ykbu ds cxy esa ftldk ’kjhj {kr&fo{kr voLFkk esa iM-k gqvk FkkA ftls ns[kdj geyksxksa ds }kjk rqjar vius ofjIB vf/kdkjh dks lwfpr fd;kA ftuds }kjk funsZ’k fn;k x;k fd vkiyksx rqjar bldh lwpuk ukFkxat vkuW fM;wVh LVs’ku ekLVj dks vfxze dk;Zokgh gsrq ns rFkk e`rd ’kjhj dh lqj{kk o ns[kjs[k gsrq ?kVukLFky ij gh jgsA ckn esa geyksxksa ds }kjk ukFkxat LVs’ku ekLVj dks lwpuk nsdj le; yxHkx 08-00 cts rd e`rd ‘’kjhj dh lqj{kk gsrq mDr fdyksehVj ij mifLFkr jgsA ckn esa esjs esB oklqnso }kjk geyksxksa 8 dks fjyht fd;k x;k ftlds i'pkr geyksx foJke gsrq vius vius DokVZj okil vk x;sA bl laca/k esa esjk ;gh c;ku gSA 15.

All the statements are relevant and as per these statements applicant in her statement highlighted following facts:- 1.

Deceased was a married person and name of his wife is Munni Devi.

There is no indication of travel, purchase of ticket and journey in the statement rather as per statement deceased was having some mental health problem and he was under stress after seeing the death of three hens kept by their family in their house and he started vomiting.

Thereafter, he ran towards the forest and ultimately they came but know about his death in a train accident.

Brother of the deceased also gave statement on similar lines whereas Gangman deposed how he came to know about the dead body lying at the place of the incident and to whom he reported the matter.

16.

AW-2 although in examination in-chief and cross-examination tried to support the case of the applicant and deposed on such lines, but ultimately during cross-examination he replied that he was not travelling with the deceased on the date of the incident. incident.

Leaving aside such admission, so made during cross- examination, I have independently examined the veracity of fact of his co-travel with the deceased.

There was no ACP and further AW- 1 has failed to prove on record any ticket to show travel.

Further, as per statement of AW-2 he got down at 9 Paharpur Station and informed Station Master, Paharpur about the incident but there is no communication or message from Station Master, Paharpur about the incident.

Neither Railway Authorities nor the applicants have proved any such communication on record.

Rather Gangman Anuj Soren in his statement during DRM’s Enquiry explained how during patrolling he saw one dead body lying on the track and the further process of information given by him to the station Authorities.

It shows that the deposition of AW-2 that he informed Station Authorities about the incident appears to be a concocted story and this further refutes the pleadings of travel of the deceased and co-travel by AW-2.

No ticket has been proved on record rather statement of applicant during course of DRM’s Enquiry is in contradiction with the pleadings made in the OA.

17.

The applicant has failed to step into the witness box so the applicant has failed to discharge the initial burden regarding bona fide passenger status and untoward incident as required in terms of judgement in the case of Rina Devi Vs.

Union of India.

18.

In the backdrop of the above, the deceased cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger and applicant has failed to prove on record any travel.

Rather statement given during the course of the DRM’s Enquiry reveals that it was a case of accident while crossing the railway track or otherwise but for the sake of compensation alleged incident has been concocted as a case of travel and 10 accidental fall.

The applicant has failed to prove on record that the deceased was travelling by any train or he accidentally fell down from the running train. ing train.

So, both these issues are decided against the applicant and in favour of the respondent.

19.

Issues No.

4 & 5:- As per statement given during the course of the DRM’s enquiry, the applicant herself revealed that the deceased was a married person and also disclosed name of wife of the deceased as Munni Devi in the statement.

It is said that when deceased started vomiting after seeing dead hens, his wife cleaned him.

The statement was given in the normal course by the applicant and in this case the applicant has failed to step into the witness box.

In the OA, the applicant has failed to disclose anything about the details of wife and children of the deceased.

Rather in reply to Cl No.

6, the deceased has been shown as unmarried person.

Though applicant is the mother of the deceased but applicant has not come to this Tribunal with clean hands and has concealed the marital status and actual dependency of the deceased.

So applicant has not come to this Court with clean hands.

Therefore, this OA is liable to be decided against the applicant as applicant has failed to approach this Tribunal with clean hands.

11 Hence it is ORDERED That the applicant is not entitled for any compensation and the claim application of the applicant being devoid of merits is dismissed on contest with no order as to costs.

Given under my hand on seal of this Tribunal on this day of 20.10.2023.

Dictated on 20.10.2023.

Pronounced in Open Court. (DHRUV SINGH) Member (Technical) RCT/Ranchi 20.10.2023.

Corrected and signed by us on 20.10.2023. (DHRUV SINGH) Member (Technical) RCT/Ranchi 20.10.2023.