ROSHAN LAL Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants who are the dependents of the deceased found dead on a platform though was a bona fide passenger for the reason that there were no external injuries on the body of the appellant and the medical report prepared by the concerned authorities have opined that the death of the deceased was on account of administration of poison which is proved by Ex.AW1/13, part of the post-mortem report. There is no other evidence which has been led on behalf of the appellant to show as to how it is the case of untoward incident which may fasten a liability upon the respondent railways.

(2.) The relevant observations made by the Railway Claims Tribunal while deciding issue no. 3 & 4 are reproduced hereunder: ?On the other hand, the circumstances arising out of the case would diffuse such suspicion. The contents of the copy of the PM Report, Ex.AW-1/10, would reveal that the deceased was found dead on platform No. 12/15 West Side near foot over bridge on 3.1.2007 at 5 AM vide D.D. No. 5A. It would further disclose that there were no apparent visible external injuries on the dead body of the deceased. The opinion regarding the cause of the death of the deceased was reserved awaiting the receipt of visceral-chemical report analysis. Admittedly, the dead body of the deceased was identified by the brother of the deceased namely Shri Pradeep Kumar as per Ex.AW-1/5, and that, at that time, he did not suspect any foul play regarding the death of the deceased. That means he did not suspect any foul play in the death of the deceased. On the other hand, he appears to have stated to the Police under Ex.AW-1/5 that there is no suspicion with regard to the cause of death of the deceased, and, he did not suspect any foul play. This was on 3.1.2007. Thus, there was no suspicion of any kind regarding the cause of death of the deceased, nor they suspected any foul play in the death of the deceased, nor they suspected any foul play in the death of the deceased at the relevant time. But only subsequently, it appears that on 2.11.2007 the applicant is stated to have written a letter to the ACP stating that he suspects that the death of the deceased might have been caused by some miscreants by administering poison to the deceased in order to commit theft of his articles vide Ex.AW-1/13. The said statement regarding the suspicion about the cause of death of the deceased is not supported by any tangible material. It has no rational basis. It is only a suspicion on the part of the AW-1, which has no rational basis. Moreover, the said suspicion entertained by AW-1 as late as on 2.11.2007, was not expressed by the brother of the deceased on 3.1.2007 when he had identified the dead body of the deceased, and, stated that they did not suspect any foul play regarding the cause of death of the deceased. The said suspicion of AW-1 did not have the support of his own son, who had identified the dead body. Therefore, the suspicion regarding the cause of death of the deceased, as alleged in the letter, Ex.AW-1/13 on 2.11.2007, and, reproduced in his affidavit, appears to be a clear afterthought with an eye on the claim, with intent to make a claim against the railways. There is absolutely no relevant and cogent material on record to show that the deceased had been administered poison by some third person with intent to cause his death. On the other hand, the contents of Ex.AW-1/5 would clearly demolish, and, falsifies the story sought to be developed subsequently by the applicants. The possibility of the deceased himself consuming poison and having died of self-poisoning cannot be completely ruled out in the facts and circumstances of his case. Be that as it may, at any rate, there is no reliable and cogent material, which is acceptable in the eye of law to show that the deceased has died on account of an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 (c) read with Section 124- A of the Act. Not every death of a passenger in the course of his travelling by the train gives a claim to compensation, unless it arises out of an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Act. The onus is upon the applicants to show that the death of the deceased was on account of untoward incident by adducing reliable evidence which is acceptable in the eye of law and they have failed to discharge that burden. Therefore, the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicants is neither sufficient, nor satisfactory to show that the death of the deceased had occurred as a result of an untoward incident. Therefore, the necessary result that should follow is that the death of the deceased did not occur on account of any untoward incident under Section 124-A of the Act.?

(3.) The Tribunal in the aforesaid circumstances dismissed the claim petition.