P.K. Sinha JUDGMENT
1. The applicant, Tapan Dey @ Tapan Kumar Dey has filed this claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 on 29.12.2014 seeking compensation for an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with cost and interest for himself as well as on behalf of his wife, Sandhya Dey as dependants for the death of his unmarried son, Tanmoy Dey who stated to have died in an untoward railway accident. The averments made by the applicant in brief are that on 09.06.2014, Tanmoy Dey, since deceased was travelling from Sealdahto Shyamnagar Railway Stations by local train and at about 08.40 p.m., his son accidentally fell down from the said running train near Shyamnagar Railway Station, sustained severe injuries on his person and with the help of local people was taken to B.N. Bose S.D. Hospital, Barrack pore where he declared brought dead. It is further pleaded that the victim was having monthly ticket bearing no. P-77010129 valid from 22.05.14 to 21.06.14 and Railway I/Card bearing no. G-74831341 and the said ticket was recovered from the pocket of the deceased which is kept under the custody of the applicant.
2. To contest the case, the Respondent, Eastern Railway has filed written statement wherein it has denied and disputed almost all the allegations contained in the application. It has further contended that the deceased neither fell down from the said running train nor did he receive serious injury on his person near Shyamnagar Railway Station. The deceased met with the accident as a result of his own negligence in crossing the track and got knocked down bypassing train. It has also denied that the victim held valid railway ticket and puts the applicant to provide strict proof thereof. It has finally prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
3. Upon pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 23.12.2015:-
1) Whether the deceased, Tanmoy Dey was a bona fide passenger by a local train on 09.06.2014?
2) Whether the deceased, Tanmoy Dey died due to any 'untoward incident' within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the I.R. Act, as claimed by the applicant?
3) Whether the applicant and other are dependants of the deceased?
4) Whether the applicant and other are entitled to get compensation and if so, how much
4. To prove his case, the applicant, Tapan Dey @ Tapan Kumar Dey appeared and gave evidence as witness (AW/1). No other witness has been produced on behalf of the applicant. During his evidence, the applicant has furnished certain documents which were marked as follows:-
1) Copy of Aadhar Card of Tanmoy Dey. --- - Exhibit - A/1.
2) Copy of Voter I/Card of Tanmoy Dey. --- - Exhibit - A/2
3) Copy of Voter I/Card of Sandhya Dey. --- - Exhibit - A/3
4) Copy of Death Certificate of Tanmoy Dey. --- - Exhibit - A/4
5) Copy of Memo No. 615/R/15 dt. 17.7.15. ---- Exhibit - A/5
6) Copy of a letter dt. 16.7.15 of OC/Titagarh P.S. ---- Exhibit - A/6
7) Certified copy of P.M. Report. --- - Exhibit - A/7
8) Certified copy of FIR. --- - Exhibit - A/8
9) Certified copy of Final Police Report. --- - Exhibit - A/9
10) Original Railway Monthly Ticket along with its I/Card---- Exhibit - A/10
5. On the other hand, though the respondent railway has not adduced any evidence, but has filed DRM's Report which is marked as Exhibit R/1.
Issue Nos. 1 & 2:-
6.1 For the sake of cogency, these two issues are taken up together for analysis.
6.2 The applicant, Tapan Dey @ Tapan Kumar Dey appeared before the Tribunal and gave evidence as AW/1 wherein he has reiterated more or less the same facts, as stated in the original claim application. During cross-examination, the applicant (AW/1)stated that the victim was his son and he used to work in a private company at Kolkata. In his cross-examination, the applicant (AW/1) further stated that he was not the eyewitness of the incident. Some nearby persons of place of incident gave him the information about the incident over phone.
6.3 In support of his arguments in regard to the fact of these issues, Ld. Counsel of the applicant did not turn up on three consecutive occasions when the case was fixed for arguments. Accordingly, the case is taken up hearing on the basis of documents available on record.
6.4 On the other hand, though the respondent railway did not lead any oral evidence, but has filed detailed DRM's Report (Exhibit R/1) wherein it has concluded that the deceased Tonmoy Dey was standing at platform no. 03 of Shyamnagar Railway Station in careless manner when he was knocked down by through pass Train No. 13163 Up and sustained severe head injury and later he expired. The report further stated that no railway ticket was recovered from the possession of the victim.
6.5. Referring to the DRM's Report, Ld. Counsel of the respondent during arguments has submitted that victim died knocked down by train and as such the said incident occurred due to own carelessness/negligence of the victim for which the respondent railway is not at all liable to pay compensation. Finally, it has prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
7.1 Considered the submissions made by Ld. Counsel of the respondent.
7.2 At the outset it appears that one written complaint of the complainant is treated as FIR (Exhibit A/8), but the said written complaint is not available on record for which the primary information to know about the cause of death could not be ascertained. No Railway Memo or Station Diary is also available on record. Secondly, though in the Surathal Report available on record states that on preliminary investigation from the witnesses who signed on the said report it is learnt that the deceased slipped and fell down at Shyamnagar Railway Station on the way of returning from his office by train at about 20.35 hrs and thereafter the people was brought him as dead condition at Dr. B.N. Bose S.D. Hospital at about 21.45 hours. On scrutiny of the Surathal Report, it is seen that the applicant has not produced any of the witnesses whose names have been mentioned in the said Report. Thus, the Surathal Report was prepared based on mere presumption and as such the same is devoid of any merit in the eye of the law. That apart, in the Final Police Report (Exhibit A/9), there is no mention that the victim died falling down from the train. Even the P.M. Report(Exhibit A/7) does not reflect any specific reason of sustaining fatal injury by the victim. On the other hand, in the DRM's Report (Exhibit R/1) it has concluded that deceased Tonmoy Dey was standing at platform no. 03 of Shyamnagar Railway Station in careless manner when he was knocked down by through pass Train No. 13163 Up and sustained severe head injury and later he expired. This document has not been disputed by the applicant by producing any contrary evidence. That apart, proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act provides that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to-
(a) suicide or attempted to suicide by him;
(b) self-inflicted injury;
(c) his own criminal act;
(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;
(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.
Moreover, under Section 147(1) of the Railways Act states that if any person enters upon or into any part of a railway without lawful authority, or having lawfully entered upon or into such part misuses such property or refuses to leave, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.
Accordingly, the respondent railway is exempted from paying compensation to the applicant in view of proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act
7.3 Further, in regard to alleged monthly ticket, as filed in the record, the Tribunal observed that such ticket appears to have been neither handed over by Hospital Authority nor Police for which the formal proof of the ticket, so filed, could not be substantiated. Accordingly, ticket, so filed, is unable to attract any evidentiary value in the eye of law. Moreover, once the applicant has failed to prove that the deceased met his death in an 'untoward incident', it does not remain relevant to deal with the question of whether the deceased was armed with journey ticket.
7.4 Thus, keeping in view of the above facts, evidences, circumstances and documents available in the record, this Bench of the Tribunal observes that since the applicant has miserably failed to prove that his son died due to a reason which may fall within the ambit of 'untoward incident', as per provision of Section 123(c) (2) of the Railways Act, as alleged by the applicant and as the applicant has also been failed to establish that the victim was a bona fide passenger on the date of the alleged incident, the Tribunal is absolutely helpless to consider the Issues in favour of the applicant. Hence, these two issues are decided against the applicant.
Issue Nos. 3 & 4:
8. Since as per the findings of Issue Nos. 1 & 2 above, the applicant has failed to establish his case, he is not entitled to get any compensation or any relief, as prayed for. Thus, these Issues are also answered against the applicant. Hence,
ORDERED
9. That the instant claim applications dismissed on contest on its merit. No costs.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.