BHOLA CHAUHAN SON OF SRI DILIP CHAUHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY HAZIPUR BIHAR)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 21st August, 2009 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred as to the 'Tribunal') in Claim Case No. OA 00207 of 2004, whereby the claim application claiming compensation of rupees four lacs for the death of the applicant's son who fell down from the running train.

(2.) Shortly stated, the facts of the case are that on 29th May, 2004 while the deceased was coming from Warsaliganj to Nawada by Kuil-Gaya Passenger train he fell down from the running train due to the rush of the passengers and sudden jerk in the train. The deceased was taken to Hospital at Warsaliganj. The doctors at Warsaliganj seeing the seriousness of injury referred the deceased to Nawada Sadar Hospital where he was further referred to Patna Medical College & Hospital, Patna and in course of treatment he however died on 6th June, 2004. Fardbeyan of the father of the deceased Bhola Chouhan (applicant) was recorded by the Pirbahore Police Station Patna which was referred to Nawada G.R.P. where UD Case No.8 of 2004 was registered. The post mortem of the dead body was performed at PMCH, Patna. Police investigated the matter and submitted police report. After completion of necessary required formalities, the father of the deceased filed the aforesaid claim application claiming compensation of rupees four lacs as prescribed under the rules. The applicant in support of his claim adduced oral as also documentary evidence. The Railway administration appeared in the said claim case and filed the written statement, however, no evidences whatsoever oral or documentary was adduced to counter the claim. The Tribunal upon considering evidences on record found that there are discrepancy in the evidences adduced on behalf of the applicant, as such, discarded all the evidence and accordingly dismissed the claim. The applicant being aggrieved by such dismissal, preferred the present miscellaneous appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that even though the oral evidence as also the documentary evidences amply establishes the basic fact of the death of the deceased who fell down from the running train as stated in the claim application resulting in his death. Apart from the oral evidence of the claimant, the father of the deceased, evidence of AW 2 Rekha Devi, wife of the deceased, evidence of AW 3 Kamlesh Chouhan who was the person who got the ticket purchased for the deceased at Warsaliganj Railway Station and boarded him into the train in question for his travel from Warsaliganj to Nawada as also evidence of AW 4 Sudhir Chouhan, who categorically stated that he himself saw the deceased falling down from the train at the Warsaliganj railway crossing. The tribunal for having no valid justification did not rely on the evidences of AW 3 and AW 4 despite the statement made in their affidavits as also the cross examination before the Tribunal, nothing worth came on the record so as to discard their evidences. This apart, the documentary evidence i.e. the fardbeyan of the father of the deceased (Exhibit-5) as also the first information report followed by the final report submitted by the police vide Exhibit-7 narrates about the untoward incident, however, there may be some minor discrepancy, but the very foundational fact did not change. It is further contended that after the death of the son of the applicant, the post mortem of the dead body was held. The doctor after performing the post mortem submitted the report vide Exhibit-A/6 which clearly mentions about the head injury the cause of death of the deceased and the witnesses during the police investigation have also stated about the aforesaid injury. In other words, it is submitted that the applicant has substantiated its claim by oral as well as by documentary evidence, moreso, the proceeding being summary in nature required to be disposed of in light of the provisions of section 18 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 a beneficial legislation, and as such, the Tribunal ought to have adopted a liberal approach in appreciating the evidence and should have considered in its correct perspective.