F.M.A. 1377 of 2013. Case: Kumkum Roy Vs Union of India. High Court of Calcutta (India)
| Case Number | F.M.A. 1377 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Prasanta Kumar Banerjee and Sib Sankar Banerjee, Advs. and For Respondents: Anirban Dutta, Adv. |
| Judges | Dipankar Datta and Sahidullah Munshi, JJ. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 174; Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Section 23; Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 123(c), 124A |
| Judgement Date | February 10, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Calcutta (India) |
Judgment:
Dipankar Datta, J.
-
Aggrieved by rejection of her claim application under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereafter the 1989 Act) registered as Claim Application No. U/722/2005 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata vide judgment and order dated April 24, 2012, the claimant as appellant has preferred this appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
-
It was pleaded in the claim application that the husband of the claimant/appellant (hereafter the victim) while travelling in a local train accidentally fell down, suffered multiple injuries and died instantaneously. As such, she claimed Rs. 4 lakh on account of compensation.
-
At the trial, the claimant/appellant and one Samir Mukherjee, alleged co-passenger of the victim, adduced evidence as P.Ws. 1 and 2 respectively. None adduced evidence on behalf of the railway, the respondent in the claim application. Upon consideration of the evidence led in course of the trial, the tribunal doubted that the victim was a passenger. The reason was no railway ticket was found on his person. Disbelieving the version of the claimant/appellant, it proceeded to return a finding that the victim did not die as a result of any accidental fall from a moving train but may have been run over. It was finally held that the claim not being covered by 'untoward incident' as defined in section 123(c) of the 1989 Act, the claimant/appellant was not entitled to any compensation.
-
We have heard Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the claimant/appellant and Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate for the respondent with patience, having regard to the claim of unnatural death of the victim in circumstances beyond his control not succeeding before the tribunal. However, despite the sympathy we have for the claimant/appellant and her children, we are unable to grant her any relief based on the evidence led before the tribunal and have no option but to dismiss the appeal for the reasons that follow.
-
It appears from the impugned judgment and order that the inquest report prepared under Section 174, Code of Criminal Procedure by the concerned police officer was before the tribunal and it had considered the same. The said report is a contemporaneous document which surfaced immediately after the dead body of the victim was located. On a reading of such report, we find that it was signed, inter alia, by the claimant/appellant and one Prabir Mukherjee, brother of P.W. -2. In course of...
To continue reading
Request your trial