UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUNITA DEVI & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT First Appeal From Orders has been preferred under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tri­bunal Act, 1987 against the impugned award dated 27-2-2004, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow.

(2.) IN brief, one Brijpal, a Milkman while travelling from Itauja Railway Station to Lucknow fell down from the train on 15-10-2001 at Itauja Railway Station because of jerk and succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the King Georges' Medical University, Luc-know where he was brought after the acci­dent. The deceased Brijpal was having a valid Monthly Seasonal Ticket (M.S.T.) to travel from Lucknow to Itauja and vice versa and the validity was up to 31-10-2001. The de­pendents of the deceased Brijpal, namely Smt. Sunita Devi (wife), Smt. Ram Kali (mother), Km. Mushkan (daughter), aged about 5 years and Lali(daughter) aged about two years ap­proached the Railway Tribunal for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.4 lacs. The tribunal recorded a finding that the claimants are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.4 lacs and granted the benefit of the pro­visions contained in Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (in short Act). The tribu­nal declined to provide the benefit of the exception contained in Section 124-A of the Act to the appellant on the ground that no evi­dence was led by the appellant to substanti­ate the pleading that the controversy in ques­tion is covered by proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. However, it was raised that be­cause of his own fault, the deceased had fallen from train and succumbed to the injuries. The tribunal has recorded a finding that the ap­pellant failed to establish its case with regard to any illegality committed by the deceased Brijpal. No eye-witness was produced by the appellant before the tribunal to substantiate its argument with regard to the pleadings con­tained in the written statement. The tribunal further recorded a finding that nothing has been brought on record to show that the inju­ries caused to the deceased were self-inflicted injuries or he was a victim of his own crimi­nal act so as to attract the proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. It has been further held by the tribunal that mere allegation without sup­porting evidence cannot be a ground to dis­believe the version raised by the claimants-respondents. On the basis of the evidence on record, the tribunal recorded a finding that the deceased suffered injuries in an accident and succumbed to them and his dependents are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs in pursuance to the provisions con­tained in Section 124-A of the Act. It has been recorded by the tribunal that the deceased was possessing M.S.T. as well as Identity Card issued by the Railway on payment of required charges, hence he was a bona fide passenger and his dependents are entitled for payment of compensation.

(3.) OTHER submission of the learned coun­sel for the appellant is that the tribunal has not delivered judgment within 21 days but it took almost two months to deliver the judg­ment after conclusion of hearing. It has also been submitted that the documents filed by the parties were not put for admission or de­nial by the respective parties. He relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court re­ported in [2004(22) LCD 986 Union of India v. Smt. Jameela and others].