UNION OF INDIA Vs. KASINATH BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.2.2005 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Case No.TA/4/2001 directing payment of compensation of Rs.4/- lakhs with interest @4% per annum from 28.6.2000 to 27.6.2003 and with 6% interest thereafter apart from cost of Rs.2500/-.

(2.) Claimants-respondents are the parents of deceased Gundicha Behera. Case of the claimants-respondents is that the deceased Gundicha Behera while traveling in Ahmedabad Express (Train No.8034) met with an untoward accident resulting in his death. Further case of the claimants-respondents is that the deceased boarded the train at Surat on 12.8.1999 and some of his villagers had seen him off in the railway station at Surat along with his elder brother. The deceased was found in injured condition at Akota village by one Imtiaz Fullbhai Patel, a villager of Akota who took him to the hospital and in course of his treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. The Railway police after receiving information from the Chief Medical Officer made a station diary entry vide Entry No.24/99 and started enquiry. Inquest was done and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The GRPF investigated the matter and submitted final report before the Magistrate under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code as the investigating agency did not find any foul play and the death was purely accidental.

(3.) Shri B.K. Behura, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, challenging the order of the tribunal on the ground that the claimants-respondents having not been able to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the said train and that such an untoward accidental fall occurred in course of journey, the Tribunal committed an error by allowing prayer for compensation. Learned counsel also challenged the judgment on the ground that the deceased being a student there is no loss of dependency so far as the claimants are concerned, and therefore no compensation could have been allowed. Apart from the above submission, Shri Behura, learned counsel for the appellant, also referred to some technical defects in the procedure and submitted that the matter should be remitted back to the Tribunal for hearing afresh on the question raised by him. Learned counsel also cited some decisions in support of his submission.