[ad_1]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/12 vs Jalal Uddin on 14 July, 2025
Page No.# 1/12
GAHC010175422016
2025:GAU-AS:8956
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MFA/101/2016
THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON,
GUWAHATI-11, ASSAM.
VERSUS
JALAL UDDIN
SO JOLLIL UDDIN, R/O HAHCHORA, P.S. BARPETA, DIST. BARPETA,
ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.U K GOSWAMI, MR.G GOSWAMI,SC, NF RLY
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.J MOLLAH, MS.A BHANU,MS.S P DAS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
JUDGMENT
14.07.2025
Heard Mr. G. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. J. Mollah,
learned counsel for the respondent.
2. In this appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the
appellant has challenged the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order
dated 26.08.2016, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench
(Tribunal hereinafter), in O.A. IIu. 107/2012.
3. It is to be noted here that vide judgment and order dated 26.08.2016, the
Page No.# 2/12
learned Tribunal had directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-
with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e.
03.10.2012, till the date of the order, within a period of 60 days from the date of
passing of the order and failing to which, the amount shall carry interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
Background Facts:-
4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are adumbrated
herein below:-
“On 21.09.2012, deceased, Jolil Uddin was proceeding from Guwahati Railway
Station to Barpeta Road Railway Station in DN Siphung Passenger Train. But, he did
not reach Barpeta and his dead body was found in between Rangia and Gagrapara
Railway Station, as he fell down from the train and thereafter, he received grievous
injuries on his person and died on the spot.
In connection with the said accident, Rangia GRPS U/D Case No. 57/2012, was
registered and thereafter, post mortem upon the dead body was conducted and
thereafter, the dead body was handed over to his family members.
Thereafter, the respondent herein, being the son of the deceased, had filed an
application claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation for the death of his
father, who was a bona-fide passenger of Siphung Express.
Upon receipt of notice, the appellant herein entered appearance and filed
written statement and denied its liability to pay compensation. It had taken a stand
that after inquiry, it has come to the light from the DRM report that no evidence
was found that the deceased was travelling by the train in question, as no ticket
was found from his possession and as per train register of RNY & GEO station, the
train No. 55754 DN Siphung, dated 21.09.2012, arrived at 15:50 hrs. and left RNY
at 15:53 hrs. and it reached GEO Station at 16:04 hrs. and from the SM’s Diary of
Page No.# 3/12GEO, it was clear that at about 15:50 hrs. on duty SS/GEO received a telephonic
message from on duty SASM/RNY regarding lying down of one dead body at KM
No. 354/8-7, in between RNY-GEO station. Therefore, the question of falling down
of the deceased from the train does not arise, as his dead body was found lying at
15:20 hrs, and as such, the claim is baseless and concocted and therefore, the
same is liable to be dismissed.
Upon the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed following
issues for determination :-
(i) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger?
(ii) Whether the accident is untoward incident?
(iii)Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation?
If so, to what sum?
(iv) Relief and costs?
Thereafter, considering the evidence adduced by the applicant and the
documents, Exhibit A-1,- the copy of police report, Exhibit A-2, – the copy of
memo, Exhibit A-3 -the copy of FIR, Exhibit A-4 – the copy of inquest report,
Exhibit A-5 – the copy of final report, Exhibit A-6 – the dependency certificate
issued by the President of No. 7 Bagodi Gaon Panchayat, dated 02.11.2015, Exhibit
A-7 the copy of Voter Electoral ID and also considering the DRM report (R/1), Sub-
Inspector/RPF report (R/2), Sub-Inspector /RNY (P) (R/3), SM’s Diary (R/4), true
copy of train register (R/5), two certificates of Village Head (R/6), translated copy
of Final Report (R/7) and also considering the submissions of learned counsel for
the parties, the learned Tribunal had decided all the issues in favour of the
applicant and thereafter, directed that the appellant herein shall pay the
compensation, with interest, as stated herein above.”
5. Being aggrieved, this MFA is preferred by the appellant on the following
Page No.# 4/12
grounds:-
(i) That, the learned Tribunal had acted illegally and with material
irregularity in exercising the power and jurisdiction vested under the
law, in allowing the claim of the respondent, which failed to take into
consideration the correct factual and legal aspect;
(ii) That, the learned Tribunal did not apply its mind and over looked the
merit of the claim of the appellant;
(iii) That, the learned Tribunal had failed to appreciate the facts that the
deceased had no valid railway journey ticket and therefore, he was not
a bona-fide passenger, as defined in Section 2(29) of the Railway Act
and that the learned Tribunal had relied upon the evidence of the
applicant, witness No. 1, and the conclusion so arrived at, is liable to be
interfered with; and
(iv) That, the learned Tribunal did not consider the report dated 19.08.2013,
of the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner and other connected
documents, which are the part of the report of DRM, which report can
be treated as a statutory report; and
(v) That, the learned Tribunal had failed to consider the materials placed on
record as per Section 18(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and also
failed to consider the fact that the deceased was a victim of untoward
incident, under Section 124A of the Railway Act.
5.1. Under such circumstances, it is contended that the present appeal may be
allowed by setting aside the judgment and order, dated 26.08.2016, passed by the
learned Tribunal.
Page No.# 5/12
Submissions:-
6. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present case
is a ran over case, where train ran over the body and the hand of the dead body
was found cut and as such, it cannot be called as careless accident because his
dead body was found besides the railway track. Mr. Goswami further submits that
the inquest report, post mortem report and the report of the DRM does not
indicate it as a case of untoward incident and as per DRM report, the DN Siphung
Express left Rangia at 15:50 hrs prior to finding of the dead body at the place of
occurrence and that there was no eye witnesses and the respondent has failed to
examine any witness and that he was not informed by any other person.
Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is illegal and arbitrary and the same
is liable to be interfered with.
6.1. In support of his submission, Mr. Goswami has referred following decisions:-
(i) Union of India vs. Rina Devi, reported in (2019) 3 SCC
572 and
(ii) Kaliram Konwar vs. Union of India, in MFA No. 11/2018.
7. Per-contra, Mr. Mollah, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
appellant was a bona-fide passenger of the train and the learned Tribunal had
rightly arrived at a just finding, which warrants no interference of this court. Mr.
Mollah further submits that it is an ‘untoward incident’ involving accidental falling
and not a case of run over and that the deceased hailed from Barpeta, which is 50
– 60 km away from the place of accident. Mr. Mollah further submits that the
applicant by adducing evidence and exhibiting documents discharged his initial
burden and now the burden shifts to the appellant herein and the appellant herein
had failed to discharge the same. Mr. Mollah also submits that the presumption is
in favour of the applicant and that the report of the DRM is not proved as per
Page No.# 6/12
Section 66 of the Evidence Act by examining the DRM. Under the above facts and
circumstances, Mr. Mollah has contended to dismiss the appeal.
7.1. In support of his submission, Mr. Mollah has also referred to following
decisions:-
(i) Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and
Others, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527 and
(ii) Doli Rani Saha vs. Union of India, in Civil Appeal No.
8605/2024.
8. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have
carefully gone through the memo of appeal and the documents placed on record
and also perused the impugned judgment and order so passed by learned Tribunal
and also gone through the decisions referred by learned counsel for both the
parties.
9. It appears that while deciding the issue Nos. 1 & 2, whether the deceased
was a bona-fide passenger and whether the accident is untoward incident,
respectively, the learned Tribunal had held that the presumption is that a person
who travels by train is considered to be a bona-fide passenger unless proved
contrary. It had also held that a person is considered to be law abiding till
otherwise proved as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India vs. Santhabai and others, reported in 2010 (4) T.A.C. 813 L
(A.P.) and that mere absence of a ticket, on the person of the deceased, by itself
is not a reason to conclude that a person was not a bona-fide passenger.
Thereafter, the learned Tribunal had held that in the case of Union of India
owning Southern Railway vs. G. Loganayaki, V. Yuvarani, V. Rajesh,
V. Dinesh, reported in 2008 (1) TCJ 108, the High Court of Madras after
referring to the decision reported in the case of Raj Kumari & Another vs.
Page No.# 7/12
Union of India, reported in 1993 ACJ 846 MP, held that the burden to prove
that a person is not a bona-fide passenger lies with the Railways.
9.1. Further, the learned Tribunal held that the defence taken by the respondent
that victim was run over by the train, due to his own negligence, as held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Prabhakaran
Vijaya Kumar and Others, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527, wherein it is held
that liability of the Railways is absolute and negligence has no room in a case of
untoward incident and the expression accidental falling of a passenger from a train
carrying passengers’ includes accidents when a bona-fide passenger, i.e. a
passenger travelling with a valid ticket or pass is trying to enter into a railway train
and falls down during the process, in other words, a purposive and not literal
interpretation should be given to the expression. Thereafter, it had discussed the
case of Jameela & others vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 2010
Supreme Court 3705, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court, after interpreting Section
124 A of the Railways Act, held that liability to pay the compensation is regardless
of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the Railway administration,
and that a negligent act will not disentitle a claimant from claiming compensation.
9.2. Then the learned Tribunal held that the DRM report, dated 19.08.2013,
reveals that on 21.09.2012, SM/RNY served a Memo addressed to OC/GRP/RNY &
OC/RPF/RNY, stating therein that ‘One unknown dead body (M) lying near track at
KM No.354/8-7 between RNY-GOE as per Sri Kanak Lahkar, keyman/GOE at SK-16
LC gate,’ and during inquest no journey ticket was found from the possession of
the victim person and after post mortem, the dead body was kept in the morgue
house. Thus, the final report submitted on 30.12.2012, concluding that ‘ the cause
of death is run over due to carelessness on part of the victim person.’
9.3. The learned Tribunal further held that the respondent further submitted that
Page No.# 8/12
as per train register of RNY-GOE stations, Train No. 55754 DN Siphung passenger,
dated 21.09.2012, arrived at RNY station at 15:50 hrs and left RNY at 15:53 hrs. It
reached GOE station at 16:04 hrs. E.O. also collected true copy of SM’s diary of
GOE Station, wherein it is clearly mentioned that at about 15:50 hrs on duty
SS/GOE had received a telephonic information, from on duty SASM/RNY, regarding
lying of one dead body at KM No. 354/8-7 in between RNY-GOE stations. Hence,
the question of falling down of the victim person from DN. Siphung passenger does
not arise as the said dead body was detected at 15:20 hrs. before passing of DN.
Siphung passenger train over RNY-GOE section. Thus, (Exhibit R/2) manifestly
proves that the victim was run over by the running train; therefore, applicant is not
entitled for any compensation. The respondent has also filed certificate of Gaon
Burah of Mauza Nagaon, Distt. Barpeta dated 18.07.2013 (R/5) that the deceased
was not the resident of village Hahchora. Therefore, plea of the applicant may be
dismissed being the claim application is not based on true facts.
9.4. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal, on consideration of the facts & documents
placed on record, held that the respondent had neither placed on record the copy
of memo issued by the keyman- Shri Kanak Lahkar, on the basis of which the SS
GOE station had sent Memo to GRP at 04:15 PM, nor said keyman was examined
as witness to prove this fact that he had sent a memo at what time.
9.5. In respect of plea of the respondent/appellant herein that the deceased was
not a resident of village Hahchora, the learned Tribunal held that the respondent
has not placed on record any document to show as to which place the deceased
belonged. The Headman of the village has also not come to prove this fact and no
other address of deceased is placed on record. On the other hand, the applicant in
every document including Voter I.D. placed on record has mentioned the address
as village Hahchora. The distance of said village from the place of accident is about
50 to 60 KM. The respondent had not proved anything contrary to show as to how
Page No.# 9/12
the body of deceased was lying there or what the deceased was doing there before
accident.
9.6. Then, the learned Tribunal held that the accident has occurred during
daytime, near Railway level crossing gate. There must be lot of people standing
both sides of said railway L/C gate & somebody must have seen the deceased run
over by any of the trains passed through that Track. But, respondent has not
produced any witness to prove this fact and there is every likelihood of deceased
being run over after falling down from the same train. It is a settled legal position
that Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is a benevolent legislation and facts of
accident is not required to be proved like criminal case.
9.7. Then considering the affidavit of the applicant and cross-examined by the
respondent, the learned Tribunal held that the same remained un-shattered with
regard to the fact that he accompanied his father to Railway Station on 21.09.2012
and that he purchased the journey ticket for his father to go to Barpeta from
Guwahati Railway Station. The applicant was also not cross examined with regard
to the plea of the respondent that the deceased was not the resident of village
Hahchora. The post mortem report also reveals that the deceased had sustained
multiple crushed injuries. As per doctor’s opinion, ‘ the death was instantaneous as
a result of injury of head as described. Injuries are ante mortem & have caused by
blunt force impact consistent with railway run over incident.’
9.8. The learned Tribunal further held that the timings mentioned in the DRM
report & memo are different which shows that report is not based on actual matrix
of facts. The police has also not prepared Seizure list for the reason best known to
it. After collective reading of all the material placed on record, the factum of
accident is also proved. The respondent has failed to prove the cause of accident
within ambit of any of the exceptions enshrined under Section 124 (A) of the
Page No.# 10/12
Railways Act, 1989, therefore, it is held that the victim has died after falling down
from the train and run over in an “untoward incident” while travelling in train with
valid journey ticket as defined under Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989.
10. Having carefully considered the finding of the learned Tribunal as discussed
herein above, in the light of the facts and circumstances on the record, as appears
from the record of the learned Tribunal, it appears that the said finding is based on
the record and also based on the evidence of the applicant/respondent herein and
the documents produced and exhibited by him before the learned Tribunal. The
evidence of the applicant clearly shows that he accompanied the deceased to the
railway station on 21.09.2012, and he purchased his journey ticket for his father to
go to Barpeta from Guwahati Railway Station. And this piece of evidence of the
applicant remained un-rebutted in the cross-examination. The
applicant/respondent, thus, by his evidence and documents exhibited, discharged
its initial burden that his deceased father was a bona-fide passenger of the DN.
Siphung Express on the fateful day. It is now well settled that mere absence of
ticket with the injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona-
fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant, which can be discharged by
filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways.
(See- Union of India vs. Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572).
11. It is well settled in the case of G. Loganayaki, V. Yuvarani, V.
Rajesh, V. Dinesh, (supra) and also in the case of Raj Kumari & Another
(supra), that the burden to prove that a person is not a bona-fide passenger, lies
with the Railways. And the appellant herein had failed to discharge the same. Mr.
Mollah, the learned counsel for the respondent referring to the decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Doli Rani Saha (supra), has rightly pointed this
out during the course of hearing and I find substance in the same. Thus, the
finding of the learned Tribunal that the deceased was a ‘bona-fide passenger’
Page No.# 11/12
cannot be faulted with.
12. The evidence of the applicant also reveals that his native place is Hahchora
and the said fact also remained undisputed. Though the appellant had relied upon-
R/6, the Certificate of the Gaonburha, to contend that the deceased was not the
resident of village Hanchara, yet the same was not proved by examining the
Gaonburah. That being so, the Certificate, cannot be used to discredit the
otherwise clear and cogent evidence of applicant/respondent herein.
13. The appellant had also relied upon R/1, the DRM report, to negate the claim
of the applicant/respondent herein. But, it appears that the said report is not based
on actual matrix of fact, as held by the learned Tribunal and the keyman, Sri Kanak
Lahkar, who had issued the copy of memo, had not been examined by the
appellant herein as witness. And under such circumstances, the learned Tribunal
has rightly held that the appellant herein had failed to prove that the cause of
accident falls within the ambit of Section 124A of the Railway Act.
14. It is to be noted here that the Section 124A of the Railways Act provides five
exceptions under which the compensation shall not be payable, which are
extracted herein below:-
"(i) Suicide or attempted suicide by him;
(ii) Self-inflicted injury;
(iii) His own criminal act;
(iv) Any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or
insanity; and
(v) Any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical
treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due
to injury caused by the said untoward incident.”
Page No.# 12/12
14.1.In the present case, no evidence was led by the appellant to show that the
case of the deceased comes under any of the abovementioned exceptions. It is
also to be noted here that the provision for compensation in the Railways Act is a
beneficial piece of legislation, in our opinion; it should receive a liberal and wider
interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. When two interpretation is
possible in a given facts and circumstances of a case then the one which advances
the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred. [See-
Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra)].
15. I have also considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant
and also gone through the decisions referred by him. There is no quarrel at the Bar
regarding the proposition of law, so laid down in the cases referred by him. But, I
find that the proposition, so laid down in the said cases, are not applicable in all
force to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
16. On the other hand, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Mollah, the
learned counsel for the respondent, and the decisions referred by him also
strengthened his submission.
17. Under such circumstances, this court is of the view that the learned Tribunal
has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances on the record and arrived at a
just finding and directed the appellant to pay the compensation to the
applicant/respondent and as such, the impugned judgment and order requires no
interference of this court.
18. In the result, I find this appeal devoid of merit and accordingly, the same
stands dismissed. Send down the record of learned Tribunal with a copy of this
judgment and order.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
[ad_2]
Source link