DHUMA RAM MANDI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) This appeal has been preferred assailing the order and judgment dated 11.08.2014, passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No. OA (IIU)/ RNC/2007/0014.

(3.) The case of the Claimant lies in a narrow compass. The Claimant is the father of the deceased, Anand Mandi, who after purchasing a single ordinary 2nd class ticket from Tatanagar to Chakulia, boarded Thata-Kharagpur Passenger Train on 22.07.2006 and after boarding the train, met with an accident by way of falling down from the said train. The body of the deceased was seen by the petrol man, who informed the incident to SM/ Chakulia. Thereafter, the matter was forwarded to GRP, Chakulia, where U/D Case No. 43 of 2006 dated 23.07.2006 was registered. Upon getting information regarding the said incident, the son of the applicant namely, Sukhlal Mandi visited the office of GRP and collected the information. After completing all the formalities, the Applicant, who was the father of the deceased, Anand Mandi, claimed compensation of an amount to the tune of Rs.4.00 lakh for himself as the dependent of the deceased. However, no interest and cost was claimed. The claim was contested by the Railways by way of filing written statements, inter alia, contending the fact that the deceased fell down from the train and met with an accident. As such, the Railway was not responsible for the death and neither was there any eye witness to corroborate the said incident nor any passenger ticket was recovered from the possession of the deceased. Further, in the claim application there was no mention about the ticket number which the deceased was having and in such circumstances, the statement of the applicant itself is doubtful and as such, the applicant has to be put to strict proof that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train. It was also argued that the applicant is also put to strict proof that the cause of death of late Anand Mandi does not fall in any of the exceptional clauses (a) to (e) of Section 124-A of the Railways (Amendment) Act, 1994. Hence, the claim application itself is not maintainable and the appellant is not entitled for any compensation.