Ranjeet Singh and Ran Vijay Singh vs The Union of India

Akhilesh Chandra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. This is an appeal preferred against judgment dated 14th May 2009 passed by Railway Claim Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in Claim Application No. OA 000118/2004, refusing the claim of the appellants seeking a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- against death of their mother Sonamati Devi on 05.05.2004 due to rail accident in which she along with her nephew AW1 Arbind Kumar Singh had been traveling from Bhagalpur for Ara in between at Guljarbagh railway station while going to ease herself fell down from the compartment suffered injuries and subsequently succumbed during treatment a few hours thereafter at N.M.C.H. Patna.

Relating to accident at the instance of AW1 co-passenger one UD Case No. 14/2004 was instituted by G.R.P. who after investigation submitted its final report stating death of the deceased after meeting an accident of a particular train.

Before the Claim Tribunal apart from the documentary evidence including railway ticket two witnesses were produced on behalf of the claimant appellant, A.W. 2 is claimant no. 1, who is admittedly not an eye witness, got information about the accident etc. through phone, another witness is co-passenger Arbind Kumar Singh, who stated about the manner of accident and his arrival at N.M.C.H. Patna, immediately on getting information from station authorities at Guljarbagh, since he would not came down from the train at Guljarbagh station because it was not stopped there.

The Claim Tribunal has refused the claim on the technical grounds of production of railway ticket before it directly it could not be located during treatment or preparation of the report of deceased absence of signature of Vakalatnama of one of the co-applicant etc.

Undisputedly the deceased died leaving her two sons and five daughters and in view of Section 125 of the Railway Act which reads as such:

Application for Compensation - (1) An application for compensation u/s 124 (or section 124-A) may be made to the Claims Tribunal -

(a) by the person who has sustained the injury or suffered any loss, or

(b) by any agent duly authorized by such person in this behalf or

(c) where such person is a minor, by his guardian, or

(d) where death has resulted from the accident, (or the untoward incident) by any dependant of the deceased or where such a dependant is a minor, by his guardian.

(2) Every application by a dependant for compensation under this section shall be for the benefit of every other dependant.

An application for compensation, if any, filed by even one of the dependent may be entertained since it shall be for the benefit of all the deponents.

True it is that, it is the case of the claimant appellant that deceased was traveling with her nephew Arbind Kumar Singh and computerized ticket of one single adult is produced in the normal course since said co-passenger or a stranger are as is evident from his deposition he along with deceased had gone to Bhagalpur to attend marriage of their own relative and returning thereafter the computerized ticket should have been for two persons.

But no adverse inference can be drawn in absence of any cross-examination of the person competent to reply (Arbind Kumar Singh) during cross examination by railway, there is also nothing to rebut final conclusion of the investigating agency in UD Case (Ext. A6) that it was the case of accident by railway and since the deceased was a bonafide passenger the railway cannot escape from the liability to compensate against death. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal stands 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.