KHAMANI BAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS miscellaneous appeal under Sec. 23 of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter '1987 Act') has been filed by the appellants -claimants (hereinafter 'the claimants') challenging the judgment dt. 02.09.2004 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal (herein after 'the Tribunal'). Thereby the claim petition has been dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of it being fraudulent in nature. The facts of the case are that the claimants filed a petition on 08.02.2002 under Sec. 16 of the 1987 Act read with Section 125 of the Railway Act, 1989 for a compensation of Rs. 8 lacs for the death Bhera Prajapati, on 21.05.2001 alleging that he accidentally fell from train No. 171, Ahmedabad Falna while travelling on a valid ticket from Mori Bera to Jawai Band. The claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the claimants failed to prove that deceased purchased any valid ticket for journey on the train from Mori Bera to Jawai Band as alleged. The other ground for dismissal of the claim petition was that affidavits of witnesses, belonging to Bali District Pali, attested at Bhanupura in Madhya Pradesh, were ex -facie unreliable as the distance between Bali and Bhanpura was of more than 300 k.m., and no reasonable explanation was put forth as to why is so happened. Another ground for the dismissal of the claim petition is that neither the incident of the accidental falling of the deceased Bhera Prajapati on 21 -5 -2001 from the train in issue was informed to the railway authorities on the same day or even the next day, nor any passenger travelling in the compartment nor even the purported eye witness did pull the chain. Noting the alleged "happenstance" as claimed the learned Tribunal found little comfort in relying on the untrustworthy evidence of the claimants. The claim petition filed by the claimants was thus dismissed with a direction to initiate proceedings against claimant and her witness Mohan Ram under Sec. 193 IPC for rampant perjury on oath before the Tribunal.

(2.) HENCE this appeal.

(3.) COUNSEL submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed a gross illegality in holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger on train No. 171 as allegedly no ticket was purchased by the deceased. It was submitted that the Tribunal wrongly failed to consider the evidence of the co -passenger Mohan Ram. The Tribunal also failed to consider, counsel submitted, the fact that the deceased was removed from the railway track by Railway gate -man himself, under information to Railway Station Master Mori Bhera and then onwards to MDH Hospital Jodhpur, where he died after two days of the accident. The news item of the accident was published in the news paper on the next day. It was emphatically albeit without much conviction submitted that therefore there was no doubt that the deceased died due to an accidental fall from the running train and the claimants as his dependents entitled to compensation. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Ors., : 2008 ACJ 1895 and the judgment of Jharkhand High Court in the case of Smt. Puspa Majumdar & Others v. Union of India, Misc. Appeal No. 23/2008 decided on 15.01.2014. A perusal of the judgments however indicates that judgments relied upon are distinguishable on facts.