VIJAY MAL BHAKT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Appeal under Section 23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been preferred against an order dated 16.10.2012 passed by Sri J.D. Goswami, Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the "Claims Tribunal") in Claim Application No. OA00337 of 2002. By the said order learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim application filed by the appellant. Short fact of the case is that the appellant had claimed compensation due to death of his unmarried son in an untoward incidence, who died after falling from running train. The claim petition was filed under Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 read with Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 claiming compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/ -. In claim application it was disclosed that the son of the appellant was going to Biha Pukhri, Assam for his livelihood and after purchasing second class Express train ticket on 31.7.2002 for his journey from Siwan to Guwahati Junction, he boarded the general bogey in Awadh Assam Express at Siwan. However, near Umesh Nagar Railway Station due to heavy rush and jerk he fell down from running train and died on the spot. In respect of death G.R.P., Khagaria registered a case vide U.D. Case No. 9 of 2002 dated 31.7.2002. After preparing inquest report dead body was sent to Sadar Hospital, Khagaria for post mortem examination. Thereafter, the claim petition was filed claiming compensation as indicated above. However, the learned Claims Tribunal after examining evidence and hearing the parties rejected the claim application by the impugned order, which has been assailed, in the present appeal.

(2.) SRI Pravin Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant assailing the order of the Claims Tribunal has argued that the learned Claims Tribunal without any basis or rhyme and reason rejected the claim application primarily on the plea that final report submitted by the Police mentioning therein that death of deceased had occurred due to fall from running train was tampered. Since a specific plea was taken by learned counsel for the appellant that there was no reason to create doubt on the final report, thus, during the course of hearing on 22.7.2014 this court wanted to get the matter enquired on the question of findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal in respect of tampering of final report. Since it was a serious question that in a judicial proceeding certain tampered and fabricated documents were brought on record, which was noticed by the Claims Tribunal, this court directed the Vigilance Investigation Bureau to conduct an enquiry in respect of documents brought before the Claims Tribunal from the side of the claimant. The order dated 22.7.2014 is quoted hereinbelow: - -

(3.) SRI Sidharth Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent/Railway has vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant. He tried to persuade the court that the learned Claims Tribunal has categorically considered that it was a case of "run over" and not a case of death due to fall from running train. He submits that the case of "run over" is considered as self -inflicted injury which does not attract any compensation. Accordingly, he has prayed for rejection of the appeal.