LAWS(JHAR)-2016-11-93

MOST. RADHA DEVI, W/O LATE BHUNESHWAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE MARKACHHO, P.O. P.S. MARKACHHO, DISTRICT KODERMA (JHARKHAND) Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAY, NEW DELHI

Decided On November 23, 2016
Most. Radha Devi, W/O Late Bhuneshwar Singh, R/O Village Markachho, P.O. P.S. Markachho, District Koderma (Jharkhand) Appellant
V/S
Union of India through The Secretary, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.04.2014 passed by the Member(Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in Case No.OA(IIU)/RNC/2008/0009 whereby the claim application filed under Sec. 124A of Railway Act, 1989 by the applicant/appellant was dismissed on the ground that the applicant has failed to submit the authenticated documents in support of her claim.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had filed the photocopies of the documents before the Tribunal as would be evident from paragraphs 3 and 3.1 of the impugned judgment and had also filed petition dated 21.04.2014 for issuance of summons on the witnesses, namely, Station Master, Block Hut, PP, Ahraura Road, Mirzapur, Investigating Officer, Adalhat Thana, Mirzapur, Ramesh Singh of Narayanpur, Birendra Roy of Narayanpur and Chief Medical Officer, Mirzapur for proving the documents but the learned Tribunal has dismissed the application on the ground that despite opportunity given to the applicant for adducing evidence she had adduced only four witnesses and the documents filed by her were not authenticated hence, she has not been able to establish her case. It is submitted that the Tribunal should have ascertained the authenticity of the documents filed by the applicant either by calling for the report from the concerned Railway/police officials or by summoning the witnesses in terms of the petition dated 21.04.2014 but the Tribunal without passing any order on the petition has dismissed the claim application. At this stage, it is prayed that the matter be remanded to the court below with liberty to the appellant to prove the authenticity of the photocopies of the documents.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the impugned judgment has been passed in accordance with law since the documents filed by the applicant are not authenticated and the appellant has failed to establish her claim.