DHARAM BIDYAS KUJUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Railway.

(2.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondent-authorities to pay the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioner whose minor son died on account of railway accident which took place due to the negligence and non-compliance of the statutory obligations on the part of respondent-authorities while crossing an unmanned railway crossing and was hit and run over by a train resulting in his death on 25.08.2003.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the deceased Prabhat Kujur was a student of Class 10, Gossener High School, Ranchi. On 25.08.2003, the deceased was going to school on a bicycle on Namkom Chutia Road. She further submits that it is a common and popular road for the local residents and this road passed through Railway Crossing at Ketari Bagan, Chutia. The deceased while going to school was crossing the Ketari Bagan unmanned Railway Crossing at Chutia, when Patna Hatia Express Train coming towards Ranchi Station in high speed at about 9:30am without appropriate signals ran over the deceased resulting in his death on the spot. After that incident, the local people demonstrated at the site and demanded for construction of a gate at the site of crossing. She further submits that this matter was also reported in daily newspaper on 26.08.2003. She further submits that the U.D. Case No. 18/03 was registered by the G.R.P. Ranchi railway station Thana on the basis of written statement of the mother of the deceased, namely Smt. Muktisalen Kujur on 25.08.2003. The matter was also investigated by the Railway Police and inquest report was prepared and final report was submitted which also support the case of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The petitioner filed the representation before the Divisional Railway Manager, Hatia for compensation as contained in Annexure-5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to ill-advice, the petitioner filed the compensation case under the Motor Vehicles Act , which was rejected on the ground of jurisdiction only on 22.03.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and the same was rejected on the ground that it is not in terms of Section 124 of the Railways Act read with Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. She further submits that under Section 18 of the Railways Act, 1989 contemplates putting gates, chain bars etc. at the level crossing of the smooth running of the trains and it is duty of the railway authority to protect that area under Section 18 of the Act, 1989. She further submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Laxmi Priya Sahu and Another vs. Divisional Railway Manager, East Coast Railway and Another reported in (2013) 3 T.A.C. 352 (Ori.), wherein paragraph Nos. 27 to 29 reads hereunder as: -