HARINANDAN PRASAD SON OF LATE BUDDHU MAHTO Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER EASTERN RAILWAY KOLKATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Anil Singh, learned counsel for the Union of India (Railway Administration).

(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 27th May, 2009 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in Claim Application No. OA 00145 of 1999 rejecting the claim of the appellant.

(3.) CONSIDERING the submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the documents brought before the Tribunal, at the outset it would appear that except the oral evidence and the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant there is no other evidence on behalf of the Railway administration to counter the evidence of the applicant. The applicant supported the case by filing the affidavit of his own as also of the co- passenger Lokeshwar Prasad. The said Lokeshwar Prasad in his affidavit has stated that he was coming with the deceased along with two other co-passengers of the same village and narrated the untoward incident that when the train reached at the Barh Railway Station on account of heavy rush of the passengers the other two co- passengers namely, Kuri Devi & Hiriya Devi got down from the train, however, the train moved, and as such, the AW-2 Lokeshwar Prasad and Minia Devi (deceased) remained in the bogie, but due to the heavy rush of the passengers from behind, Minia Devi was pushed out and ultimately she fell down from the running train. The said Lokeshwar Prasad however said that when the train reached Athmalgola Station he got down from the train and came back to Barh Railway Station and informed the Station Master. Thereafter he proceeded to the Hospital where the deceased was taken for treatment, he remained their and in the next morning during the treatment when the deceased died he went to the village and informed the family members and thereafter son of the deceased came at about 11 AM and received the body after the post mortem. The evidence of AW-1 may not be of much help as he was not an eye witness, however, the fardbeyan of another eye witness namely, Kuri Devi was brought on the record as Exhibit-A-4 and on whose fardbeyan the first information report was registered vide Exhibit-A-2. The police after investigation and collecting the necessary information report of doctor who performed the post mortem as also the final report stating therein about untoward incident in which the deceased died and also stated in his final report that the post mortem was however performed but the report since was not prepared, hospital authorities informed that the same would be sent to the police. Apart from the above, the inquest report was also brought on record as Exhibit-A-5 in which the cause of death was indicated due to the fall of the deceased from the train. Now upon perusal of the above documents, it would appear that the documents may not be of the standard which are required in a criminal trial, but the documents are sufficient to conclude that the deceased died on account of the untoward incident as stated in the claim application. The Tribunal was not correct in law in rejecting the entire documentary evidence as also the evidence of AW 2 Lokeshwar Prasad who claimed to be the eye witness in absence of any counter evidence or anything come out during the cross-examination. This Court finds that the evidence brought on record on behalf of the applicant was sufficient to allow the claim.