JYOTI DEVI WIFE OF LATE BIRENDRA BAITHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY HAJIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order/Award dated 16th December, 2008, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in claim application number O.A. 00086 of 2004, filed by the applicants-appellants claiming compensation of rupees four lacs for the death of the husband of the appellant no. 1 on account his falling down from the Train No. 519 UP at Bettiah railway platform while travelling from Bettiah to Narkatiyaganj. The Tribunal dismissed the claim application primarily for having certain discrepancy in the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the applicants as also for want of some more documents like first information report, inquest report, post-mortem report, final report etc.

(2.) The brief fact of the case as made out in the claim application is to the effect that the applicantsappellants herein, are the wife and sons of one Birendra Baitha, who fell down from the train soon after boarding the train while travelling from Bettiah to Narkatiyaganj by Train No. 519 UP on 23rd June, 2003 and got himself in between the train and platform resulting in the amputation of his leg later in course of treatment succumbed to the injury on the same date. The aforesaid accident claim application was filed on 28th June, 2004 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal on considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that there is serious discrepancy in the age of the sons of the deceased as also in the evidence of A.W. 2, who happens to be the brother-in-law of the deceased with respect to the purchase of train ticket for travel of the deceased from Bettiah to Narkatiyaganj besides as to whether he was an eye witness to the incident. The Tribunal for such discrepancy dismissed the claim of the appellants.

(3.) Mr. Abinash Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the approach of the Tribunal in considering the evidence on record was not correct and justified in law inasmuch as while rejecting the claim the Tribunal did not give due weightage to the documentary evidences produced by the appellants which were the official documents of the Railway/Police and were sufficient to establish the factum of accident, getting the Sanha lodged by the Assistant Station Master Bettiah, sending the injured through Constable by G.R.P. Bettiah and also medical treatment given to the injured at M.J.K. Sadar Hospital, Bettiah followed by the issuance of death certificate vide exhibits A/2, A/3, A/4 & A/7. It is further submitted that the Tribunal while rejecting the claim of the appellants gave undue emphasis on the so called discrepancy in the age of the minor sons of the deceased in the light of the dependency certificate (Exhibit-A/8) even though there is no such material discrepancy. Moreover, it is submitted that small discrepancy in the age of the minors has no relevance to the fact whether husband of the appellant no.1 fell down from the train and sustained injury which led to his death. It is accordingly submitted that the order/Award under appeal deserves to be set aside and the claim of the appellants be allowed as claimed.