PRABIR KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a practicing advocate and human rights activist has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction in granting compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the families of each one of the deceased persons and to adequately compensate the injured persons, who were the victims of the railway accident i.e. the collusion of a speeding Express Train with a trolley auto rickshaw on 24.8.2012 morning i.e. at 8.40 A.M. at Khairpali unmanned level crossing in the district of Sambalpur resulting in the death of 14 persons in all. Besides payment of compensation to the victims of such accident the petitioner has also prayed that direction to be issued to the Railway Authorities of East Coast Railways as well as the Railway Board to convert all the unmanned level crossing in the district of Sambalpur to manned level crossing and to construct over bridges/under bridges for preventing such accidents especially in unmanned level crossings for ensuring public safety. It is also prayed that direction may be issued to the State Government to extend all cooperation to the Railway Authorities in such construction of over bridges/under bridges at such unmanned level crossings etc. The factual matrix reveals that on 24.8.2012 at 8.40 A.M. female agricultural labourers including some minor girls were proceeding to Sindurapank from village Ainapali for working in paddy fields in a trolley Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration No. OR-15-3-3034. It is alleged that the ill fated trolley auto rickshaw while crossing the unmanned level crossing at Khairapali was rammed by the Rourkela-Bhubaneswar intercity Express causing instantaneous death to 12 ladies and leaving many women injured who were in that Cargo Auto. Later on two ladies succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment in the hospital and therefore the death toll rose to 14. It is further alleged that all the victims of the accident belong to the below poverty line category. The driver of the ill fated trolley auto rickshaw, Satyaranjan Nath, besides agricultural labourers, namely, Champa Bhoi, Pooja, Gouri Sahu, Medam Sahu, Anu Bhoi, Arati Bhoi, Bharati Bhoi, Buli-Bhoi, Khatkuri Bhoi, Jayanti Bag, Ahalya Badhei, Dukhi Pradhan and Sanjukta Rout died because of the accident whereas Nirupama Bhoi, Hemalata Bhoi, Subasini Rana, Chandini Rout, Mohini Bhoi and Brundabati Bhoi had sustained injuries because of the aforementioned accident. According to the petitioner, the accident took place because of the indifferent and callous attitude of the railway administration and failure to discharge the obligation to ensure public safety especially at all unmanned level crossings. According to the petitioner the District Administration after the accident in question granted a paltry sum of Rs. 5,000/- to each of the family of the deceased and the Railway Administration assured payment of only Rs. 2,000/- which are grossly inadequate by all standards. Accordingly, the petitioner decided to take up the cause of the poor and hapless persons belonging to the marginalized sections of the society for grant of compensation to the next of kith and kin of each of the deceased person to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- and also to compensate injured persons adequately etc.

(2.) The opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have filed their counter affidavit wherein while admitting the accident in question it is their case that the accident in question took place solely because of the careless and negligent driving of the Mahindra Alfa Cargo Auto by its driver which is not a passenger vehicle. Besides that it is the case of the opposite parties that the driver of the Train No. 18105 Rourkela-Bhubaneswar Intercity Express while approaching the level crossing No. ST-7 between Sambalpur City - Maneswar the Loco pilot, observed one Cargo Three Wheeler Auto Mahindra Alfa suddenly crossing the unmanned level crossing and on seeing that he applied the emergency brake, but since the train was very close to the level crossing it could not be stopped short of the level crossing and rammed into the Cargo Auto which had already entered the level crossing and trying to cross the same resulting in the death of 12 passengers of the Cargo Auto at the spot and injuring seven persons who were in the said Auto. Out of the said seven injured, one of them died on the way to the hospital and another person succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. Out of the five injured persons, two had sustained grievous injuries while three had simple injuries. It is the specific case of the opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 that though the train driver was blowing horn but unfortunately the deceased driver of the Auto was listening to music by using the head phone attached to this mobile phone and the said driver of the Auto did not bother to look both sides of the track before crossing the unmanned level crossing in question for which the accident took place. According to the opposite parties, 19 persons were traveling in the Cargo Auto at the time of the accident including the driver though the same was registered as a goods vehicle and had no permission for carrying passengers and the letter of the R.T.O., Sambalpur to that effect has been annexed as Annexure-A/1 series. It is also their case that at all unmanned level crossings warning boards have been provided at distance of 40 meters from the crossing and stop boards are provided at 05 meters besides speed breakers have also been provided at a distance of 20 meters to ensure that the vehicle drivers do not approach the rail crossing at a high speed.

(3.) Opposite party No. 5 namely, the Superintendent of Police, Sambalpur filed the counter affidavit wherein it is his stand that for the alleged collusion between the train and the Autorickshaw U.D. Case No. 15 of 2012 was initially registered at Dhanuapali Police Station which was subsequently registered as Dhanuapali P.S. Case No. 154 of 2012 dated 26.8.2012 under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and the investigation of the case is on. It is the specific stand of the opposite party No. 5 that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of alternative remedy before the Railway Claims Tribunal.