PRABHU DAYAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this First Appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is to the impugned judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 2.4.2009 which dismissed the Claim Petition filed by the parents of the deceased, one Shri Rakesh Kumar who is said to have died in an untoward incident of falling from a train near Tilak Bridge Railway Station, New Delhi on 14.1.2008.

(2.) The facts as stated in the complaint by the appellants were that the deceased had purchased a ticket for travel from Ghaziabad to Palwal and had boarded the Vaishali Express at Ghaziabad, and which train was going to New Delhi. It was further stated in the Claim Petition that when the train reached near Tilak Bridge Railway Station, the deceased Shri Rakesh Kumar on account of a strong jerk of the train lost his balance and fell down from the moving train which resulted in his death on the spot. The respondent/Railways contested the case and pleaded that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and in fact no ticket was purchased by the deceased. It was also contended that assuming the ticket is shown to have been purchased, the ticket was a general ticket and not of a super fast train Vaishali Express and therefore the deceased cannot be said to be a bona fide passenger of the train Vaishali Express from which he is alleged to have fallen down and died.

(3.) The Railway Claims Tribunal has arrived at a finding that the deceased did not have a valid ticket because a subsequent sentence was written in the Jamatalaashi Report, Ex. AW1/3 that a ticket was recovered, and which sentence the Railway Claims Tribunal has found to be an interpolation. The Railway Claims Tribunal then held that even assuming that deceased had purchased a ticket, the said ordinary ticket cannot be used for travel in the Vaishali Express which is a super fast train and therefore the deceased cannot be said to be a bona fide passenger of the train in question. The Railway Claims Tribunal has disbelieved the statement of the eye-witness AW2, one Sh. Lokesh Kumar who deposed that he was travelling in the train along with the deceased and the deceased died on account of fall from the train and for which incident though he raised the hue and cry, the train did not stop and therefore on reaching the New Delhi Railway Station he informed the police and returned back to the spot with the police. The Railway Claims Tribunal has disbelieved the statement of eye-witness, AW2 Shri Lokesh on the different grounds including that there was no prior acquaintance with the deceased and that no statement of the witness AW2 recorded by the police forthcoming. The Railway Claims Tribunal has held that the eye-witness was a 'planted' witness and a blatant liar/obliging witness. Another adjective used for this witness is that this witness is not a trustworthy witness.