MIRA DEVI WIFE OF MUKTI NARAYAN PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER EAST CENTRAL RAILWA HAZIPUR BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 7th of August 2009 in Claim Case No. OA 00208/2004 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), the claim of the widow for the death of her husband in the untoward incident was dismissed, hence the present appeal is preferred. The short facts is that on 24.10.2004, the deceased was coming Patna from Lucknow by Train No. 5635 down (Okha-Guwhati Express) after purchasing a valid ticket and boarded the train at Lucknow on 23.10.2004. In the morning, near about Bihia Railway Station, while the deceased was washing his hand at the wash basin near the gate of the bogie of the train, due to slippry floor near the basin, he slipped and fell down from the running train resulting his death on the spot. On information given by the Station Master, Bihia to the G.R.P., Bihia, an U.D. Case No. 36 of 2004 dated 24.10.2004 was registered. The dead body was sent for post mortem. The police after investigation submitted the police report with respect to the aforesaid untoward incident in which the deceased had died. The aforesaid claim case claiming a compensation of Rs. 4 lacs was accordingly filed. The railway administration appeared and filed written statement denying the claim as also the averments made in the claim application. The applicants in support of the claim adduced oral as well as documentary evidence on the record. However, no evidence i.e. oral as well as documentary was brought on the record on behalf of the railway. The Tribunal upon considering the evidence brought on record on behalf of the applicants, dismissed the claim upon holding that the witness cannot be relied for having discrepancy in their evidence as also for want of the evidences of the person who could have been important witness and as such, disbelieved the evidence of applicant witness, including AW-2 and AW-3. The appellant witness A.W. 2 claimed himself to be an eye witness with respect to the untoward incident and AW-3 was the person who purchased the ticket for the deceased at Lucknow Railway Station and boarded him in the train in question on 23rd of October 2004 in the evening at about 8.30 P.M. at Lucknow Railway Station

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that learned Tribunal committed serious error of law in appreciating the evidence of the applicants brought on record; oral as well as documentary. The Tribunal instead of appreciating the evidences liberally virtually adopted the standard of scrutiny required in criminal trial. The Tribunal ought to have appreciated the proceedings being summary in nature, arising out of beneficial legislation should have considered the evidences oral as well as documentary in its correct prospective and in its totality. It is further submitted that in the evidence AW-2, Samsher Sharma, categorically stated in its affidavit as well as in his cross-examination that he had seen the untoward incident in which the deceased had fallen down from the running train in his presence and there was nothing in his cross-examination which suggests that he was not an eye witness. Similarly, AW-3, namely, Pradip Kumar Srivastava had categorically stated in his affidavit as also in the cross-examination that the deceased being a family Purohit, had come at Lucknow and returned back on 23rd of October 2004 by the aforesaid train. The ticket was purchased by AW-3. He got the deceased boarded in the train himself. Besides the evidence of these two important persons in support of the untoward incident, the applicants have brought oral as well as documentary evidence. Besides the above, the memo issued by Station Master, Railway Station, Bihia (Ext. - A3) stating about the death of a person aged about 35-45 years, died in the incident by train No. 5635 down. The First Information Report vide Exhibit -4 was lodged by one Anil Kumar Pandey who came to the spot on being informed by a co-passenger. An inquest report was also prepared vide Exhibit - A/6 mentioning therein that the cause of death due to the said unnatural incident. The post mortem report ( Exhibit - A/7) mentions that the injury sustained by the deceased caused his death. The Final Report (Exhibit A/8) submitted by the police after investigation concluded that the deceased died in the aforesaid untoward incident. The applicant brought record her Identity Card issued by Election Commission of India (Exhibit - A/9). It is submitted that on perusal of the evidences oral as well as documentary, the rejection of her claim case was totally unjustified and against the materials on the record, the claim ought to have been allowed.

(3.) Mr. Anil Singh, Learned Counselfor the respondent -Railway Administration on the other hand, submits that the Tribuanl rightly dismissed the claim for the reasons that the evidences were not inspiring the confidence. It is further submitted that name of the persons, as mentioned in the Inquest Report as also the informant of the police case ought to have been examined. A person, who informed the informant about the untoward incident, should had also been examined. Moreover, there were some cuttings on the date mentioned in the Fardbeyan also created doubt with respect to the entire incident. In reply, Learned Counselfor the appellant submits that railway ought to have brought on record the report of the Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) on the record which has been brought as Annexure- 3 to the Memo of Appeal. The report of the DRM accepts the death of the deceased in the aforesaid untoward incident, however, stated that the railway cannot be held responsible