1 fa2389-05-j IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa FIRST APPEAL NO.2389 OF 2005 Smt. Zarina Begum Abdul Rashid Ansari .. Appellant V/s. The Union of India .. Respondent ..... Mr. G. J. Mohanrao for the appellant. Mr. Anand Samant for the respondent. ..... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : MARCH 25, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT :- This Appeal takes an exception to the Judgment and order dated 6th October, 2005 passed by the learned Member of the Railway Claims Tribunal. 2. The Appellant filed an application before the Railway Claims Tribunal for grant of compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs. The compensation was claimed on account of death of the appellant's son by the name Mohd. Ahmed Abdula Rashid Ansari on 23rd December, 2000. The case made out in the application is that the deceased while travelling 2 fa2389-05-j by a suburban train accidentally fell down in between Parel and Dadar railway stations and sustained severe injuries. It is stated that the deceased succumbed to the injuries. It is stated that the deceased was holding a monthly season ticket from Byculla to Kurla which was valid from 4th December, 2000 to 3rd January, 2001. Therefore, the appellant invoked Section 124(A) of the Railway Act 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) by contending that the death occurred due to untoward incident within the meaning of sub- clause(2) of Sub Section 2 of Clause (c) of Section 123 of the said Act. 3. The claim petition was contested by the respondent by filing a written statement. It was contended that it was not clear whether the deceased fell down from the train. The respondent denied that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the appellant had not proved that the deceased had fallen down from a local train. The Tribunal relied upon inquest panchanama and Station Master's Memo and held that the said documents do not support the case of accidental fall from the train. The Tribunal did not answer the other two issues regarding 3 fa2389-05-j entitlement of the appellant to file the application and whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger as it was held that the appellant has failed to prove that the death was due to an untoward incident. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the documents on record show that the deceased was traveling by a suburban train and that he fell down from the train. He submitted that the season ticket and identity card held by the deceased have been produced and proved. He submitted that the appellant is the mother of the deceased. He submitted that there is no evidence adduced by the respondent Railways for showing that it was not a case of accidental fall from the train. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned Judgment and order by pointing out that on the basis of the documentary evidence, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that it was not a case of accidental fall. He submitted that there was no evidence adduced by the appellant and, therefore, the learned Member of the Railway Tribunal held that the untoward incident has not been proved. 5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. In the 4 fa2389-05-j claim petition, there is a specific pleading that the deceased fell down from an unknown local train between Parel and Dadar Railway Stations. The identity card of the deceased bearing his photograph and the season ticket which was valid upto 3rd January, 2001 between Byculla and Kurla stations has been placed on record. It is pertinent to note that the report submitted by the police constable of the Dadar Railway Police to the Assistant Commissioner of Police CST specifically records that the deceased had fallen down from a train and had sustained injuries to the head. The said document is at Exhibit-'A-4'. The said document, the veracity of which is not disputed by the respondent completely supports the case of the accidental fall from the train. Reliance was placed by the respondent on a document at Exhibit A3 which is a report of the Station Master. The Station Master had no personal knowledge as to how the accident has occurred and in any event he has not been examined before the Tribunal. The panch witness to the inquest panchanama obviously had no knowledge about the manner in which accident occurred. In view of the categorical statement made in the report of the police constable of Dadar Railway Police, a case of accidental fall has been established. 5 fa2389-05-j 6. It will be necessary to make a reference to the deposition of the appellant which is recorded in the form of an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. In paragraph Nos.1 and 2, she has stated that she was the mother of the deceased. There is no challenge to the relationship between the deceased and the appellant. The deceased was found in possession of a valid season ticket and an identity card which have been placed on record and have been marked collectively Exhibit-'A2'. Therefore, this was a case where the claim made under Section 124A of the said Act ought to have been allowed and compensation of Rs.4 lakhs in accordance with the Railway Accident and Untoward Accidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 ought to have been granted. 7. The respondent had taken a stand which could not be established. The accident is of 23rd December, 2000. In my view, the respondent will have to pay the interest at the rate of Rs.6% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of filing of the claim petition. 8. Hence, I pass the following order : 6 fa2389-05-j :: O R D E R :: i. The impugned Judgment and order is quashed and set aside. ii. Original Application No.166 of 2001 is allowed. Iii. The respondent shall pay compensation of Rs.4 lakhs to the appellant together with interest thereon at the rate of Rs.6% per annum from 21/12/2001 till the realization or deposit. iv. Time of eight weeks is granted to comply with the order. v. There is no order as to costs. JUDGE