MOHAN LAL 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 24.1.2014 which has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant who was injured in an untoward incident on 26.2.2012.

(2.) THE case of the appellant was that on 26.2.2012, he was travelling by the train Himalaya Queen Exp. Train from Kalka to Delhi and he fell down accidently from the running train near the Sarai Rohilla/ Delhi Railway Station due to sudden jerk in the train.

(3.) I completely agree with the aforesaid observations and conclusions of the Railway Claims Tribunal because there is no reason why statement of an independent witness and who is an employee of the Railway Police Force, should be disbelieved. I may note that strict rules of Evidence and CPC do not apply to the Railway Claims Tribunal, and therefore, I disagree with the arguments urged on behalf of the appellant that the statement of Sh. Ramsakal Basisth could not be used unless he was brought into the witness box by the respondent. Contemporaneous statement made to the appropriate authorities, at the time of happening of the untoward incident can be used as a document as per facts of each case in cases before the Railway Claims Tribunal. In the facts of this case on preponderance of probabilities the Railway Claims Tribunal has rightly believed the statement of the independent/neutral witness Sh. Ramsakal and which has been proved as Ex.R -18 and if the appellant wanted to dispute the statement/document Ex.R -18, the onus was upon the appellant to summon Sh. Ramsakal, and which he failed to do.