UNION OF INDIA Vs. HARI MANGARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Union of India represented through its General Manager, South -Eastern Railway has preferred this appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Tribunals Act assailing the order dated 20.7.2005 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Case No.OA/56/2001. By the said order the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000.00 (four lakhs) with interest thereon at the rate of 4% from the date of filing of the case and directed the amount to be paid within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the Railways would pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation amount calculated from the date of filing of the case.

(2.) BEREFT of unnecessary details the present respondent as applicant had filed the aforesaid case before the Tribunal for compensation with the averments that on 9.8.2001 he had purchased a ticket bearing number 69005 for travelling by Jatni -Palasa Passenger Train from Kaipadar Road Station. After the train halted at Kaipadar Road Station, he along with other passengers tried to board the same. At that juncture suddenly the train started to move to a jerk. Consequently the passengers who were entering into the compartment lost their balance and fell on each other. The respondent who was standing near the door fell down from the train. Due to such fall, both his hands came under a wheel of the train and he sustained severe bleeding injuries. He was immediately removed to the Khurda Road Railway Hospital, and thereafter to the Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar. Unfortunately in spite of best efforts of the doctors his hands could not be saved and both the hands were amputated. According to the respondent due to non -observance of safety rules the aforesaid accident took place and the Railway was responsible for that.

(3.) IN consonance with the pleadings issues were framed by the Tribunal. To substantiate his claim the applicant filed his evidence through affidavit besides that of one Hrusikesh Mangaraj who was an eye -witness to the accident. The present appellant filed an affidavit of the Deputy Station Superintendent of Kaipadar Road Station and got one Token Porter examined as a witness. In his evidence the eye -witness Hrusikesh Mangaraj who stated that he was a passenger in the train in question having boarded the same at Kaipadar Road Station a little earlier than the applicant and to have seen the accident. He also corroborated the averment of the applicant. He stated that the said train all of a sudden started moving and consequently the passengers lost their balance and the applicant fell down from the train and sustained bleeding injuries on his person. He stated to have shifted the applicant with the help of others to Khurda Road Railway Hospital for treatment and then to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar. He was cross -examined on behalf of the present appellant in extenso, but then nothing could be elicited to discredit him.