Court No. - 40
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 208 of 2014 Appellant :- Union Of India Thru G.M. North Eastern Railway Respondent :- Vijay Shanker Dubey And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Praveen Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Vishwanath Mishra
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
The appeal has been filed against award dated 19.11.2013 passed by Member (Technical) Railway Claims Tribunal, Gorakhpur Bench Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred as “Tribunal”) in O.A.-2/134/07/BUI (Vijay Shanker Dubey and another Vs. Union of India).
The brief facts relating to the case are that respondents filed claim petition no. O.A.-2/134/07/BUI (Vijay Shanker Dubey and another Vs. Union of India) on 9.5.2007 claiming Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation with averments that Surya Prakash Dubey, 18 years old son of claimants, who was studying in Class XIIth was travelling from Varanasi to Ballia by Train No.556 DN Manduadih Chhapra Passenger (hereinafter referred as “offending train”) in Class IInd on railway journey ticket and in the morning of 20.01.2007 when train was running near Saidpur Railway Station in District Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh, he unfortunately fell down from running train due to heavy rush and jerking of the said train, resulting in grievous injuries and unconsciousness and after admitting by police in C.H.C., Saidpur, he died on 20.1.2007. It was also contended that railway ticket of deceased was lost with his purse. The written statement was filed by North Indian Railway denying the averments made in claim petition and also denying any accident with offending train as well as deceased being passenger of or travelling in the train. On parties pleadings, Tribunal framed as many as four issues and passed the impugned award decreeing the claim for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- as claimed in petition.
Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for appellant, Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vishwanath Mishra, learned counsel for claimants-respondents and perused the record as well as lower court record and paper book provided by appellant.
Learned counsel for appellant contends that the impugned judgment and award are bad on facts and law; that the time of accident and specific place of accident have neither been mentioned in petition nor proved by any evidence of eye witness; that learned Tribunal has acted wrongly in not providing opportunity of cross examining the claimants' witnesses to the Railway-appellant; that claimants failed to prove that deceased was a passenger of train in question or died due to injuries sustained by falling from offending train; that Tribunal decided the claim petition by presuming the correctness of facts mentioned in claim petition and decreeing the same for claimed amount without giving any reasoning as to on which basis the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- was calculated and awarded, while admittedly deceased was an student and had no earnings; that the impugned judgment and award are based on surmises and conjectures and the findings of Railway Claims Tribunal not only in contradiction to evidence on record, but are perverse and also suffers from manifest error of facts and law; that the claim petition has been filed with false and incorrect allegations and is liable to be dismissed.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondents supported the impugned judgment and award and contended that Railway Claims Tribunal Act is public welfare legislation and so the Tribunal was not required to enter into technicalities; that the claimants proved the factum of accident by submitting documentary evidences as well as affidavits of claimant Vijay Shankar Dubey and witness Santosh Kumar Dubey, who were not cross examined by Railways; that railway ticket of deceased had lost in the accident and in absence of railway ticket, he may not be considered to be unauthorized passenger of train; that since there is no evidence on record to dispute the relationship of claimants and deceased, as parents and son, the Tribunal has not committed any mistake in awarding a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation.
Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record as well as lower court record, I find that the impugned judgment and award contains no reasoning at all and on issue nos.2 and 3 with regard to provisions of Sections 123 (C)(2) and Clause 'b' and 'c' of Section 124 (A) of Railways Act, its findings are based on inquest report of deceased. The Tribunal in its findings on issue nos.2 and 3 referring paper no.52, the inquiry report of D.R.M. has mentioned that in above report incident of death of Surya Prakash Dubey by falling from Train No.556 on 20.1.2007 at Saidpur Station was found to be correct. The above observation is absolutely wrong and contrary to it above report paper no.52 on lower court record, clearly states that "पभारी िनरीकक की जाँच िरपोटर के अनसार िदनाँक 20.01.07 को सदपुर सटेशन पर गाड़ी सखया 556 (NE) से िगरकर सयरपकाश दबे की मतयु होने की घटना सतय नही पाया गया और न ही रारप बाबत कु छ भी दजर ही है I”
ु/ग़ाज़ीपुर व सदपुर सटेशन पर उक क In view of above mentioned report, paper no.52 on record, findings of Tribunal on issue nos.2 and 3 are absolutely wrong, contrary to material on record and are perverse and are liable to be displaced.
It is also pertinent to mention that on issue no.4 as “To what amount applicant is entitle, if any,” Tribunal has not given any reasoning for awarding compensation and has merely mentioned that according to claim application, the claim petition is liable to be decreed for Rs.4,00,000/- with interest, which is also liable to be set aside.
In view of discussions made above, I am of the considered view that learned Claims Tribunal has failed to pass any reasoned order in accordance with law in deciding the claim petition. The impugned judgment and award dated 19.11.2013 are based on surmises and conjectures and unwanted presumption with perverse findings and are liable to be set aside. The appeal is liable to be allowed.
The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 19.11.2013 is set aside.
Let the matter be sent back to Railway Claims Tribunal for afresh disposal of claim petition after giving reasonable opportunity of evidence, cross examination and hearing to both the parties, as expeditiously as possible.
Office is directed to send back the lower court record along with a copy of this order to Court below, for ascertaining necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 Tamang