UNION OF INDIA Vs. REKHA PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This F.A.O involves a challenge to the judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in O.A. No.79 of 2006.

(2.) Short background involved in the case is that on 13.09.2001 the claimant along with her deceased son and two other relatives were travelling from Bargarh Road to Badmal as bona fide passengers in 333 UP Bilashpur-Kantabanji passenger Train. On the same day, the Train reached at Bolangir Railway Station at 5.50 P.M. The train was detained at Platform No.II of Bolangir Station as Rayagada-Sambalpur DN Express Train No.8302 was scheduled to be arrived there. The deceased along with his relative came to platform No.1 through foot over bridge for the purpose of taking Tiffin. After taking Tiffin, while they were returning back to Platform No.II on the foot over bridge, taking the advantage of darkness, two unknown miscreants suddenly appeared and attacked Mamata Bhoi and tried to snatch golden chain on her neck forcibly. The deceased tried to rescue his relative Mamata Bhoi from the clutches of the miscreants and there was a tussle between them on the Platform No.I. It is, at this point of time, the miscreants pushed the deceased towards extreme edge of the Platform no.I. Unfortunately the deceased fell down on the track due to violent attack and at that time Rayagada-Sambalpur Express Train arrived and ran over the deceased and the deceased succumbed to the injury at the spot.

(3.) On the premises of the death of the deceased the claimant filed the application for claim in terms of the Railways Act. The Respondent filing written statement denied the averments and also denied on the premises that there involve no untoward incident. It is the specific case of the appellant-respondent therein that the deceased was crossing the railway track from Platform No.I to Platform No.II of Bolangir Railway Station instead of going through the foot over bridge and invited the accident. Shri Mishra, thus contended that such incident cannot come within the purview of untoward incident and therefore, the respondent therein claimed that the claimants are not entitled to the benefit as claimed.