LAWS(JHAR)-2016-7-30

RAMAKANT SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On July 12, 2016
Ramakant Sharma Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants/appellants have preferred this appeal under section 23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2015 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in case no. TAU/RNC/2004/0007, whereby and where under the claim of the appellants has been dismissed.

(2.) The case of the claimants before the tribunal was that their son, namely, Kumar Abhyanand (Since deceased) aged about 24 years after purchasing three second class tickets, boarded the Hatia - Bardhman Passenger Train on 14.03.2003 at Ranchi for going to Chandrapura. Since, the boggy was fully crowded, the son of the claimants went near the door of the train to spit outside. At that time, the train was crossing Silli and going towards Muri railway station, but during spitting his head dashed with an electric pole, where after, he fell down from the train and died. From the FIR lodged at the instance of Apurb Gaurav, one of the friends of the deceased, it appears that the deceased was accompanied with the informant Apurb Gaurav and Sekh Farukh. The photocopy of the ticket no. 20104287 dated 14.03.2003 was filed with the claim application and the two claimants, who are father and mother of the deceased, have claimed compensation of Rs. 4,00,000.00.

(3.) The respondent-Union of India, through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata filed written statement with the pleading that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the station diary of Muri Railway Station narrates different story that five friends were coming from Ranchi and the accident took place between Silli and Muri station. It was also pleaded that the deceased was leaning on the door and the act of the deceased comes under the self inflicted injuries, as defined under the provisions of Sec. 124-A of the Railways Act. As such, the Railway cannot be held liable to pay compensation. It appears from the record that no report of DRM based on the inquiry as envisaged under "The Railways Passengers (Manners of Investigation of Untoward Incidents), Rules, 2003 has been filed by the respondent-Railway Authority.