AJAY KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a claimant's appeal, arising out of a judgment and order dtd. 16/9/2013, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow rejecting the claim for compensation on account of injuries sustained in an untoward incident.

(2.) Ajay Kumar, the sole appellant here, who preferred the application for compensation before the Tribunal, said in his application, raising the claim, that he was travelling on a second class general ticket on board the Farakka Express on March 18, 2007 from Delhi to Kanpur. When the train was passing through the Govindpuri Railway Station, there was a sudden 'jerk and jolt' in its movement, that led the appellant to be thrown off board. In consequence, the appellant was grievously injured. He was admitted to the care of the Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital, Kanpur, where he underwent surgery of amputation closure. In consequence of the accident, the appellant lost his journey ticket. Along with the claim application, the appellant has submitted photostat copies of documents that include the discharge slip from the G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur, Lala Lajpat Rai and Associated Hospital, Kanpur, a copy of his ration card and a copy of the permanent disability certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur Dehat, besides some papers relating to the treatment received by the applicant as an out-patient at the G.S.V.M. Medical College, Lala Lajpat Rai and Associated Hospital. The claimant prayed that he may be granted compensation in the sum of Rs.4.00 lacs with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of incident.

(3.) The respondent-Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railways, filed a written statement, refuting the appellant's claim. The written statement was filed on 27/11/2007. The respondent took a stand that the appellant was neither a passenger on board the Farakka Express nor did he suffer a fall from the train on 13/3/2007 near Govindpuri Railway Station. There are some additional pleas set out in the written statement and this Court must remark that the written statement is so carelessly drafted that in paragraph no. 8 thereof, it is said that "the deceased was not the passenger of the Farakka Express train on 13/3/2007". Admittedly, this is a case where, in consequence of the untoward incident, the appellant has survived the fall and it is he who is claiming compensation. It is further pleaded in the written statement that the untoward incident never took place and the story has been fabricated. It is also averred that the claim application does not disclose an untoward incident within the meaning of Sec. 123(c)(2) read with Sec. 8 of the Railways Act, 1989[for short 'the Act of 1989']