CHANDARIK SAH ALIAS CHANDRIKA SAH SON OF LATE JANGBAHADUR SAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY HAZIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act has been preferred by two appellants against Judgment/order dated 04.12.2008 passed by learned Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Claims Tribunal ) in O.A. No.000209 of 2004. By the impugned Judgment and order, the claim case has been rejected by the Claims Tribunal.

(2.) The appellants after the death of their son, namely, Santosh Kumar in an untoward railway accident approached the Claims Tribunal by filing claim case, which was registered as Claim Case No.OA No.000209 of 2004 for grant of compensation amount of Rs.4 lacs . It was disclosed that on 27.10.2004 , the deceased son of the appellants, namely, Santosh Kumar after purchasing a valid rail ticket along with his uncle, namely, Din Dayal Sah boarded into Islampur-Fatuah Patna Passenger ( 549 UP) at Banka Ghat Railway Station. It was disclosed that there was heavy rush in the train and, as such, Santosh Kumar and his uncle started travelling standing near the gate inside the compartment. While train reached near Didarganj, due to heavy rush and jerk of the train Santosh Kumar, son of appellants fell down from the running train and received serious injuries. Thereafter, he was brought to Nalanda Medical College and Hospital, Patna for his treatment by the local people. Sri Din Dayal Sah, uncle of Santosh Kumar came to Nalanda Medical College and Hospital, Patna. After getting down from the train firstly he went to the place, where accident had taken place. However, it was found that the injured was already carried to Nalanda Medical College and Hospital and, as such, he rushed to Nalanda Medical College and Hospital, Patna, where the injured was admitted and in course of his treatment, Santosh Kumar died on the same day i.e. 27.10.2004 at Nalanda Medical College and Hospital. The family members were informed. The matter was reported to the police and, accordingly, an U.D. Case No. 45 of 2004 was registered at Rail P.P. Patna Sahib. It was further claimed by the appellants that during investigation, it was found that the deceased died in untoward incident. At the time of accident, the deceased was 17 years old and unmarried. It was further disclosed that the deceased with his uncle was coming to Patna from his village home to meet his father. The appellants before the Claims Tribunal besides placing statements on oath of two witnesses also brought on record copy of the F.I.R. as Ext.A-2, copy of fardbeyan as Ext.A-3, Inquest Report as Ext.A-4, Postmortem Report as Ext.A-5, Final Report as Ext.A-6, copy of Red Ration Card as Ext.A-7, Photograph for identification of Appellant no.2/ Kaushalya Devi as Ext. A-8 and Death Certificate as Ext.a-9. In the statement on oath, A.W.2 categorically asserted that he and deceased both were travelling after purchasing valid rail tickets and he also categorically stated regarding the accident, which had occurred due to heavy rush and jerk of the train and the deceased had fallen down from the running train and after receiving serious injuries, he died at Nalanda Medical College and Hospital during his treatment. A.W.1 i.e. Appellant no.1 had stated that he was informed by A.W.2 regarding the occurrence. In the case before the Claims Tribunal, the Respondent/ Union of India, East Central Railway, Hazipur appeared and filed written statement opposing the claim case. In its written statement, mainly it was pleaded that it was not a case of untoward incident and there was no evidence on record to show negligence on the part of the Railway. It was also pleaded that it was a case of self-inflicting injuries. However, after hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, the learned Claims Tribunal was satisfied that the appellants had miserably failed to prove the case. The Claims Tribunal also doubted the veracity of the claims on some unsustainable facts and finally dismissed the claim petition and no compensation was granted.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the impugned Judgment, has argued that on record, there were sufficient evidence to establish that the deceased after purchasing a valid railway ticket was travelling along with his uncle, namely, Din Dayal Sah and due to heavy rush and jerk of the train, he accidentally fell down from the running train and died due to injury sustained in the said accident. He further submits that in the said accident, the ticket, which was purchased by the deceased, got lost and, as such, railway ticket was not found from the possession of the deceased. He submits that only on the ground of non-production of railway ticket, the case of claimants was not required to be turned down by the Claims Tribunal. He submits that since the deceased was travelling on a train and died due to fall from the running train , general presumption would be that the deceased was travelling with a valid ticket and this presumption has been corroborated from the evidence of A.W.2, who was none else but travelling with the deceased and was uncle of deceased. It was submitted that only on the ground of non-production of railway ticket, a claim petition cannot be rejected. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellants has relied on a division Bench Judgment of this Court (Smt. Kaushalaya Devi & Ors Vs. Union of India, 2008 3 PLJR 711) and also a Single Bench Judgment (Smt. Akhtari Devi Vs. Union of India, 2008 1 PLJR 627). He has also relied on an unreported order passed by this Court on 06.07.2011 in M.A. No.78 of 2011 ( Bifiya Devi Vs. Union of India). He submits that in such cases, onus would be on the railway to disprove the claim of deceased that he was not a bona fide passenger. He further submits that on the materials available on record, the learned Claims Tribunal was not at all authorized to create doubt on the identity of the claimants/appellants. Neither, it was ever pleaded by the railway nor there were materials on record to create doubt on the identity of the claimants/appellants, but the learned Claims Tribunal has come out with a new story and created doubt on the identity of the claimants/appellants and rejected the claim case.