SUJIT KUMAR SON OF LATE DEVENDRA PRASAD SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER EASTERN RAILWAY KOLKATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsels for the appellant and respondent.

(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 24th May, 2006 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in Claims Case No. OA 9800165 whereby the aforesaid case claiming compensation was dismissed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant assailing the order under appeal submits that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger in face of the evidences brought on record by way of affidavit giving ticket number which was mentioned in fardbeyan as well. It is further submitted that the affidavit as also the evidences of this appellant on the record was very much clear that the deceased was a bonafide passenger who had purchased two tickets one for himself and other for the appellant. As regards the question whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger or not, it is submitted that it was for the Railway to demonstrate or to bring it on record suggestive of the fact that he was not a bonafide passenger. The Railway did not adduce any counter evidence, and as such, the Tribunal ought to have accepted the evidences on record and should have held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. It is further submitted that the documents like fardbeyan, inquest report, final report of the police as also the post mortem report have clearly indicated the death caused due to rail accident which is an untoward incident. Accordingly, it is submitted that the claim having been thoroughly supported by the evidences on record ought to have been allowed. As regards the entitlement of compensation to this appellant, it is submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider that after the death of the sole surviving claimant, the father of the deceased namely, Devendra Prasad Singh, an application was filed on behalf of this appellant reiterating himself to be the son of the deceased claimant and his prayer for adding himself as a necessary party in the category of the applicant having been not objected by the Railway was allowed by order dated 13th of January, 2005, the Tribunal allowed the proceeding to continue for coming to its logical conclusion. Therefore, it was not correct on the part of the Tribunal to disallow the claim on the ground that the appellant was not a dependant on the deceased for whose death the compensation claim was made. LEARNED counsel in support of his aforesaid contentions has relied upon the decision in the case of Bijay Shankar Sharma Vs. Union of India, reported in 2011 (2) P.L.J.R., 450 for the proposition that the factum that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger it was for the Railway to establish. In support of the proposition that the appellant who was added as a legal representative on his application in the light of the provisions of Rule 26 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 which provides that in case of a party dying during the pendency of the proceeding before the Tribunal the legal representatives of the deceased party may apply within 90 days of the date of such death for being brought on record and in case no such application is brought the proceeding shall abate. The appellant filed the application which was allowed and he continued to prosecute the proceeding. It is accordingly submitted that the appellant was entitled to receive the compensation and as such the order under appeal deserves to be set aside. LEARNED counsel has brought on record the Xerox copy of the certified copy of the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Krishnakumar.G. Vs. Union of India for the proposition that the legal representatives of the deceased claimant is entitled to receive the compensation.