Union Of India, Through The General Manager v. Nandabai & Others

1. Heard Mr.N.P.Lambat, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr.A.B.Bambal, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5.

2. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench in Claim Application No.OA(IIu)/NGP/2009/0020, dt.2.6.2010 whereby compensation in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was awarded to the respondent.

3. Briefly stated the facts are as under:

Late Mr.Sheshrao Dangat was travelling on 1.4.2008 by Nizamabad-Pune passenger train from Umri to Nanded. He fell down from the train between Umri and Shivangaon Railway Stations due to jerk at the spot near KM 389/500 and sustained injuries and died. When claim was made for the untoward incident of accident u/s.123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, the Railway Administration resisted it on the ground that the alleged incident of accidental fall was not an untoward incident. Secondly, it is resisted on the ground that the passenger was not holding railway ticket for the travelling.

4. Heard submissions advanced at the bar. Perused the evidence as well as the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Member of the Railway Claims Tribunal along with police papers produced for perusal of the Tribunal. It appears that deceased Sheshrao Dangat reportedly died due to railway accident. Police Station, Umri had reported to Taluka Maigstrate about accidental death A.D. No.3 of 2008, u/s.174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears from the Accidental Death Report dt.1.4.2008 bearing Outward No.669 of 2008 from Police Station, Umri, District Nanded that police had received information from Station Master, Umri about death of unknown person cut by Railway Near KM 389/500 between Umri to Shivangaon. Inquest panchanama drawn by police also indicated the same before the dead body was referred for post mortem. Common Detail Form mentioned the particulars of the victim as Sheshrao, aged about 32 years, male and resident of Gorttha, Tq.Umri, District Nanded along with other details that spot of incident was between Railway track near KM No.389/500. During recording of statement at the time of police inquiry, brother of deceased Madhukar Ganpati Dangat had disclosed that his brother Sheshrao went to Nanded from Umri Police Station. He started at 12.30 a.m. and Sheshrao was holding ticket as Madhukar himself had taken Sheshrao to Umri Railway Station on 31.3.2008 at about 11.00 a.m. On the following day, at about 6.00 a.m., Madhukar was informed about accident of his brother Sheshrao. Post Mortem report also indicated cause of death as death due to haemorrhage shock due to multiple injuries (unnatural).

5. Ganpati Dangat had sworn in affidavit. Evidence in support of the Claim Petition stated clearly that Sheshrao had started his travelling from Umri to Nanded on 1.4.2008 at about 12.30 a.m. Police papers indicated the fact of untoward incident and there was evidence in the form of affidavit of Madhukar Dangat who was cross-examined on behalf of the Railway Administration indicating that during the midnight on 31.3.2008 and 1.4.2008 Madhukar had been to Railway Station, Umri with Sheshrao to see off Sheshrao when he travelled from Umri towards Nanded. Madhukar himself had purchased railway ticket from Umri to Nanded for Rs.10/- and Sheshrao had put that railway ticket in his pocket. Though Madhukar was not an eye witnesses to the untoward incident, the evidence cannot be disbelieved because it is well corroborated by police papers. On behalf of the Railway Administration only one witness G.Venkatramna was examined. He received telephonic call from Subhash Khandre a villager regarding dead body noticed by him near KM. No.389/500. He then informed Police Station, Umri about telephonic message received by him. Thus, the Railway Administration relied upon the fact that the untoward incident was informed to G.Venkatraman, Assistant Station Master by the person of the village namely Subhash Khandere. It is under these circumstances that the claim was allowed by the learned Member of the Tribunal.

6. It is argued on behalf of the Railway Administration that the railway ticket was not recovered from the dead body. According to Madhukar, the Railway ticket was kept by Sheshrao in his shirt pocket and hence, it was quite possible that the ticket may have been lost during the course of untoward incident when Sheshrao fell from the Railway compartment. Merely because the railway ticket was not found or recovered from the dead body, it cannot be said that deceased Sheshrao was travelling without railway ticket. A presumption do arise in favour of the passenger travelling unless it is specific case by the Railway Administration that the passenger was travelling without ticket. There is always a presumption which ought to be drawn in favour of the law abiding citizen that he was a bona fide passenger unless a specific evidence can be pointed out to the contrary. Such presumption necessarily arise in case of a person found dead as a result of accident. Though ticketless travel is an illegal act and it exposes the traveller to penal action, unless Railway Administration takes any penal action, the presumption that the passenger had a valid ticket while travelling holds good. There is a reason to believe that deceased Sheshrao Dangat while he was travelling from Umri to Nanded by NizamabadPune Passenger Train No.1322 fell down from the running train and came under the wheels of the train and died on the spot. In absence of any evidence to the contrary by or on behalf of the Railway Administration and when police papers corroborated the version of Madhukar Dangat (brother of the deceased), who deposed in support of the claim, the Judgment and Award by the learned Member (Judicial) of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur awarding statutory compensation in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/together with interest @ 7 % p.a. from the date of application till realisation appears just and proper and no interference in the impugned Judgment and Award is called for. Hence, the appeal is found without merits. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.