SUGIA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.07.2008, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in Claim Case No. OA 9700256, whereby the claim for compensation for the death of the husband of the applicant of the said claim case was dismissed.

(2.) The short fact is that the husband of the applicant while travelling by train no. 337UP (Forbesganj-Saharsa Passenger) on 18.05.1996 from Forbesganj to Narpatganj fell down from the train on account of the heavy rush of the passengers trying to detrain near the outer signal of Narpatganj Railway Station resulting into his death. After completing the necessary formalities i.e. registration of first information report, preparation of inquest report (Exhibit-A/6), post mortem report (Exhibit-A/5) and final report (Exhibit-A/3) submitted by the police, the aforesaid claim case was filed claiming compensation of rupees four lacs. The Railway administration appeared and filed written statement, however, adduced no evidence oral or documentary save and except the affidavit of one Md. Roshan, the Inspector under Chief Commercial Manager, North East Railway, Gorakhpur (Exhibit-R), who was however not examined. The Tribunal, upon considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant oral as also documentary, dismissed the claim primarily disbelieving the evidence. The applicant being aggrieved has preferred the present miscellaneous appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in support of the claim the applicant adduced oral as well as documentary evidence as also affidavit by way of evidence. It is submitted that the applicant adduced the evidence of AW 2, Udaychand Yadav (Exhibit-A/1) and AW 3, Rajendra Yadav (Exhibit-A/2), who were accompanying the deceased on the said train on boarding the train at Forbesganj Railway Station. The witnesses have categorically stated that the deceased had boarded the train after taking a second class train ticket and they also supported the factum of occurrence in which the husband of the applicant fell down from the train and died. It is further submitted that the Tribunal considered the evidence of the applicant witnesses as also the police report submitted after investigation with respect to Raghopur Camp P.S. Case No. 3 of 1996 dated 19.05.1996 registered on the memo of the Assistant Station Master with respect to the alleged occurrence. The police upon investigation found the evidence to be correct. The Tribunal, however, rejected the evidence on slight discrepancy in the oral evidence as also the police report since in the certificated granted by the Mukhiya (Exhibit-A/4) the name of Balli Yadav, who claims himself to be the son of the deceased, was not mentioned. It is submitted that such discrepancy cannot overthrow the claim application in which the untoward incidence was found to be correct. The Tribunal while considering the case adopted a very high standard of scrutiny of the evidence which was not required in the summary proceeding arising out of a beneficial legislation, moreso, in absence of any counter evidence. It is accordingly submitted that the order under appeal deserves to be set aside and the claim be allowed. Learned counsel appearing for the Railway administration, on the other hand, submits that the Tribunal upon considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant oral as also documentary found that the evidence of the applicant witnesses was not reliable and also the police report bears mention of the name of Balli Yadav as son of the deceased whereas the name of Balli Yadav does not find mention in the certificate granted by the Mukhiya. As such, the certificate granted by the Mukhiya mentioning the name of the legal heirs of the deceased was not above suspicion. Learned counsel fairly submitted that the Railway administration did not adduce evidence although the affidavit of the Inspector, Md. Roshan was filed, however, he was not examined. Upon considering the rival submissions of the parties, it would appear that the fact that the husband of the applicant was travelling in the train in question and fell down from the train near the outer signal of Narpatganj Railway Station since there was heavy rush of the passengers in the train is not in dispute as there is no counter evidence. It is also not in dispute that there is no Enquiry Report of the Railway Administration as required under the rules with respect to the occurrence/death. The applicant adduced oral evidence of AW-2, Udaychand Yadav (Exhibit-A/1) & AW-3, Rajendra Yadav (Exhibit-A/2) as well as the final report (Exhibit-A/3) and post mortem report (Exhibit- A/5). The Tribunal has not relied upon the evidence of AW-2, Udaychand Yadav as according to the Tribunal the purpose of AW-2 in going from Forbesganj to Narpatganj was doubtful. In my opinion, the purpose for which the witness was travelling in the train is not important. The witness has categorically stated that he was accompanying the deceased who fell down from the train in his presence. This statement cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, in my opinion, the reasons assigned by the Tribunal for disbelieving the applicant's evidence are not sustainable in law. From the evidence on the record, I find that the applicant has succeeded in establishing the claim for compensation.

(3.) In the result, for the reasons and discussions made above, the order under appeal is set aside. The claim of the applicant for compensation in Claim Case No. OA 9700256 before the Claim Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, is allowed. The Railway administration is directed to pay the compensation of rupees four lacs as prescribed under the rules to the application Sugiya Devi within a period of three months from today with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till payment.