Case: Kamrunnissa Vs. Union of India

1. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties. 2. The question that arises for our consideration is, whether the deceased husband of the petitioner, Gafoor Sab, had purchased a ticket, and was attempting to board the train on 06.05.2007, at Devanagere, when the railway accident took place, whereupon he lost his life. 3. Only if the above query is answered in affirmative, the petitioner herein would be entitled to compensation from the railway authorities. 4. The Railway Claims Tribunal, as also the High Court of Karnataka, while adjudicating upon the controversy raised by the petitioner, have arrived at a conclusion, that the petitioner could not establish that her deceased husband, Gafoor Sab, had purchased a ticket, and was in the process of boarding the train at Devanagere railway station, when the accident had taken place. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that there was no justification for the courts below to have recorded such a conclusion, inasmuch as, it was clearly apparent from the inquest report prepared by the Assistant Commissioner, Railway Police Station, Devangere, that the death of the husband of the petitioner, Gafoor Sab, was caused on account of a railway accident. It was, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that it should be presumed, that deceased Gafoor Sab had purchased a ticket, and he was in the process of boarding the train at the Devangere railway station, when the accident had taken place. 6. We have considered the contentions advanced at the hands of the rival parties. We are of the view, that the issue in hand can be determined on the basis of paragraphs 7 & 8 of the inquest report, submitted by the Assistant Commissioner, Railway Police Station, Devangere. The above paragraphs are extracted hereunder :"VIIDead body was lying in two pieces on Road. No one on the Railway track, with head towards South and lying inside down, legs towards North which had become into two pices and lying next to the Railway Track, muscle and intestine has come out of the body. White full shirt, White Dhoti and Spectacle. White Chappals, there is a diary in his pocket having few phone numbers. No other items are found apart from this. VIIIDead body was lying in two pieces on Road. No one on the Railway track, with head towards South and lying inside down, legs towards North, Railway track is facing East West direction. Towards North : Road Nos.2, 3 and Good Shed road, South by : PF 1 AND THEN Quarters of Railway Staff, a) b) c) No. "A perusal of the aforesaid report reveals, that the body of the deceased, Gafoor Sab, was found on road. It is, therefore, not possible for us to accept, that the railway accident in question had taken place when the deceased was boarding the train on the railway station. 7. The afore stated report also reveals, that the body of the deceased had been cut into two pieces, and was lying next to the railway track. The report further indicates, that the intestine of the deceased had come out of the body. The above factual position reveals, that the body was cut into two pieces from the stomach. This can be inferred from the facts expressed in the inquest report, that the intestines of the deceased had come out of the body. It is not possible for us to accept, that such an accident could have taken place while boarding a train. 8. In addition to the factual position emerging out of a perusal of paragraphs 7 & 8 extracted herein above, the report also reveals, that besides a pocket diary having been found from the person of the deceased a few telephone numbers were also found, but importantly, the deceased was not in possession of any other article. This further clears the position adopted by the railway authorities, namely, that the deceased Gafoor Sab, was not in possession of a ticket, for boarding the train at the Devangere railway station. 9. In addition to the above, it is necessary to refer to the factual position disclosed in the First Information Report, recorded in matter. Relevant extract thereof is reproduced :"On 8.5.2007 SM. Devangere has sent a message in writing, on verifying the same it is observed that one male person of 65 years, was caught below the moving train on Road 1, and he died. On the information given by the passengers, case has been Registered in UDR No.26/2007 Under Section 174 CR PC and conducted investigation. Nobody identified the dead body at the time of post mortem. After completing the Panchaname the dead body was sent to Devangere Government Hospital for conducting Post Mortem and kept in the mortuary room. On telephoning to the number found in the slip which the deceased had kept in his pocket, it was of resident of Thurubagatta, they came and identified the dead body as Gafarsab, aged about 62 years, R/at Thurubaghatta. On enquiring with the brother of the deceased it is learnt that the deceased was aged and he was not working anywhere and he was residing with his wife. They have no children. He was going to his relatives house often and often. They had relatives at Bangalore also and he was coming to Bangalore often and often. Accordingly yesterday ie. On 6.5.2007 he told that he is going to Bangalore. When he came to Devangere Railway Station, he was caught to the train and he died. There is no other reason for his death. On verification of the position of the dead body circumstances of the spot, opinion of Panchas and opinion of Doctors, statement of blood witnesses, it is seen from investigation that the deceased was coming to Bangalore on some work, while crossing the Railway Track, he did not notice the train which was coming, he was caught below the train and died. Hence the death of deceased is considered as unnatural death and submitted a Final Report seeking for permission of your authority."A perusal of the First Information Report, leaves no room for any doubt, that the deceased was seen coming from the direction of Bangalore, and while crossing the railway track, he having not noticed the oncoming train, was over run by the train. In view of the factual position depicted in the First Information Report, as also the inquest report, we find no justification in entertaining a challenge to the orders passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, as also, by the High Court, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

Decision:
0[ds]6. We have considered the contentions advanced at the hands of the rival parties. We are of the view, that the issue in hand can be determined on the basis of paragraphs 7 & 8 of the inquest report, submitted by the Assistant Commissioner, Railway Police Station,perusal of the aforesaid report reveals, that the body of the deceased, Gafoor Sab, was found on road. It is, therefore, not possible for us to accept, that the railway accident in question had taken place when the deceased was boarding the train on the railway station.The afore stated report also reveals, that the body of the deceased had been cut into two pieces, and was lying next to the railway track. The report further indicates, that the intestine of the deceased had come out of the body. The above factual position reveals, that the body was cut into two pieces from the stomach. This can be inferred from the facts expressed in the inquest report, that the intestines of the deceased had come out of the body. It is not possible for us to accept, that such an accident could have taken place while boarding a train.In addition to the factual position emerging out of a perusal of paragraphs 7 & 8 extracted herein above, the report also reveals, that besides a pocket diary having been found from the person of the deceased a few telephone numbers were also found, but importantly, the deceased was not in possession of any other article. This further clears the position adopted by the railway authorities, namely, that the deceased Gafoor Sab, was not in possession of a ticket, for boarding the train at the Devangere railwayperusal of the First Information Report, leaves no room for any doubt, that the deceased was seen coming from the direction of Bangalore, and while crossing the railway track, he having not noticed the oncoming train, was over run by the train. In view of the factual position depicted in the First Information Report, as also the inquest report, we find no justification in entertaining a challenge to the orders passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, as also, by the High Court, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner.