UNION OF INDIA Vs. SANJAY BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant railway authority under section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 14/8/2006 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Original Application No. 7 of 2003 directing the Railways to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000.00 (rupees two lakh) to the claimant within 60 days after receipt of this order failing which the interest will be payable at the rate of 4 per cent from the date of order till the date of payment. It further directed that out of the above amount Rs. 1,00,000.00 shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank through the Registry of the Tribunal for a period of two years.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows: The respondent-claimant filed Original Application No. 7 of 2003 before the Railway Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 towards the injury sustained by him during the railway journey His case was that on 17.6.2003 at about 9 to 10 a.m. after purchasing a ticket, he boarded 209 Dhenkanal- Puri Passenger train in Kanas Railway Station to get down at Sakhigopal Railway Station. However, the ticket was for journey from Kanas to Malatipatpur Railway Station. As the compartment into which the claimant boarded was overcrowded, he was standing in the compartment just near the door and when the train reached near Birapurusottampur Railway Station, the local passengers tried to get down from the train for which they struggled amongst themselves and somebody pushed the claimant from behind as a result of which he fell down on the railway track through the space between the platform and the train and sustained amputation injury below knee of the right leg, minor injury on the back side of the head and bruises all over his body. After the accident, the claimant was attended by the Railway R.P.F. personnel there and in the same train he was sent to Sakhigopal Railway Station from where, after receiving first aid, he was shifted to S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack. Finally, he was discharged on 14/7/2003 after recovering from his illness. He filed a claim application before the Tribunal on 27.1.2004 claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000.00. After receiving notice, railway authorities appeared and filed their written statement taking a stand that the claimant was not a bona fide passenger of 209 Dhenkanal- Passenger train possessing a valid railway ticket, he jumped from the train under the fear of the train ticket checking staff posted at Birapurusottampur Railway Station and sustained the injuries in question for which the claimant was not entitled to receive the compensation and the documents produced by the claimant were all manufactured ones. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed as many as six issues. In support of his claim, the claimant filed evidence on affidavit stating therein that he boarded 209 Up Dhenkanal- Puri Passenger train at Kanas Railway Station after purchasing the train ticket. He fell down from the running train at Birapurusottampur Railway Station after receiving push from behind and sustained injuries. He also produced railway ticket bearing No. 42535 dated 17/6/2003 issued for journey from Kanas to Malatipatapur Railway Station, discharged medical certificate, injury report, medical bills and evidence on affidavit dated 14/8/2006 of the claimant clarifying the circumstances in which the actual paid train fare of Rs. 8 for journey from Kanas to Malatipatapur was written as "Rs. 6" in the original application coupled with an oral explanation at the time of argument for purchasing the said ticket that the claimant, an illiterate person and in order to board the train which was on the verge of leaving the station handed over a sum of Rs. 8 to the clerk at the booking counter which he had received from his brother-in-law as train fare from Kanas to Sakhigopal and simply asked for a railway ticket under the impression that the fare of the ticket from Kanas to Sakhigopal Railway Station was Rs. 8. The booking clerk issued a ticket for the station in proportion to the train fare handed over to him. The railway authority did not choose to cross- examine the claimant on this aspect. Therefore, his evidence on affidavit remained unchallenged with regard to the purchase of a valid train ticket, falling down from the train after receiving a push from behind and sustaining injuries. In support of their case, appellant Railways filed the evidence on affidavit of one Dandapani Badhei who was staff of the train ticket checking branch and one Kasinath Moha- patra, on duty Station Superintendent. Said Kasinath Mohapatra in his evidence on affidavit deposed that when the train was detained for crossing, the train guard gave a memo to him that a person fell down from the train and he made a station diary entry according to the said memo of the train guard. Dandapani Badhei during his cross-examination admitted that he had not charged the claimant for the alleged legal conduct of travelling without ticket which was an offence and the claimant was also not penalized for the same. He further admitted in his cross-examination that it was difficult to ascertain when the train was in motion whether a passenger was falling down or jumping out of the train. The claimant also denied that he had not made any confessional statement before Dandapani Badhei regarding his travelling without ticket and jumping out from the train during his cross-examination by way of suggestion made by the counsel. Tribunal, after analysing the materials, came to the conclusion that although the claimant had a train ticket to travel, he accidentally fell down from the train, doubted the genuineness of such ticket and expressed its displeasure on the failure of the claimant's counsel to explain the unsatisfactory features surrounding the ticket. It further held that the incident can be allowed as an untoward incident mainly on the ground of benefit of doubt and awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 but did not allow pendente lite interest on the compensation amount.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Railways has submitted that since the Tribunal doubted the case of the claimant, it should not have awarded the compensation and as the claimant did not prove that he was a bona fide passenger having a valid ticket and the incident was not coming within the definition and scope of 'untoward incident' as per the Railways Act, the impugned award is liable to be set aside.