AJAY KUMAR GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal dated 23.1.2014 by which the claim petition filed by the claimant has been dismissed. The appellant/claimant had filed the claim petition on the ground that he got injured in his left eye on account of an untoward incident on 14.7.2010 when a stone was thrown by some person from outside the train and he got injured in the eye because of the stone hitting his eye.

(2.) THE facts of the case as pleaded by the appellant are that he was travelling on 14.7.2010 by Seemanchal Express train no.2488 from Anand Vihar railway station to Jogbani. Appellant was a bonafide passenger and was sitting on berth no.39 of S -13 coach by the side of the window. The appellant states that a stone came through the window with force and hit his left eye causing bleeding/injury. The appellant stated that he pleaded with the on duty coach conductor but he was informed that the train will stop only at Kanpur Central railway station. After reaching the Kanpur Central railway station, claimant stated that he was sent by the railway authorities to the hospital for treatment and firstly was sent to the KPM Hospital, Kanpur and was thereafter referred to Lajpat Rai Hospital at Kanpur and where he was given initial treatment. Appellant claimed to have return to Delhi on 15.7.2010 and stated that he underwent further treatment at AIIMS. The claim petition was therefore filed with respect to the injuries suffered in the eye which according to the appellant was an 'untoward incident' i.e a 'violent attack' as stated in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.

(3.) A reading of the aforesaid paras shows that the claimant did not initially take up the case with the railway authorities that he had got injured because someone threw a stone from outside the train which hit the appellant. The case only was that a stone came from outside the train and which hit the appellant. Tribunal also notes that in the memo Ex.A2 relied upon by the appellant there is no statement of the appellant that he has got injured because someone has thrown a stone from outside the train and by which stone the appellant got injured. Appellant in the cross -examination stated that an FIR was registered at Kanpur but he has not filed any copy of the alleged FIR. There is also no complaint made to the Railways by the appellant of his being injured on account of a stone being thrown by someone from outside the train and it hit the appellant who was sitting on the window seat of the coach. Tribunal also refers to the fact that there is no report lodged with the Railways of any incident with respect to stone throwing and there is no such entry accordingly made in records. Accordingly, the Tribunal in view of these findings, dismissed the claim petition, and to which I completely agree because the liability of the respondent/Railways is only in case of violent attack i.e a person throws a stone from outside the train and by which a bonafide passenger gets injured, and in proving this, the appellant failed before the Tribunal, and resulting in dismissal of his claim petition.