GEETA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Krishna Mohan Murari, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, learned senior panel counsel for the Railways assisted by Mr. Lokesh, Advocate for the Union of India (Eastern Railways). Respondent no. 2 is also represented by learned counsel for the sole appellant.

(2.) The appellant is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order dtd. 24/4/2013 passed in Claim Application No. OA000177/2002 by learned Member (Technical) of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal has been pleased to dismiss the claim application on the ground that :- (i) The applicants failed to establish that late Sanjay was either a bonafide passenger of train no. 054EMU on 11/3/2002 or he died in any untoward incident on that day, as claimed, (ii) the identification of Smt. Geeta Devi and Ramu were not established. Smt. Geeta Devi had not signed the substitution petition filed on 16/7/2012. Further the voter card of Geeta Devi was showing that she was 22 years old when Sanjay died, (iii) Even the age of the deceased remains doubtful; and (iv) Teeja Devi never made Geeta Devi and Ramu a co-applicant in her claim application. She filed no dependency certificate at the time of filing her claim.

(3.) It appears from the records that one Teeja Devi filed the original application dtd. 9/7/2002 before learned Tribunal claiming that on 11/3/2002 her son Late Sanjay Khatik (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') while travelling by 054EMU passenger from Mughalsarai to Sasaram died in an untoward incident. In her application she made a specific statement that she was the only legal heir for the compensation. The deceased was unmarried. She, therefore, claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000.00 (Four Lakhs) by filing an application under Sec. 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as the "Act of 1989").