MAGHU SAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Anil Singh, learned Counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Union of India through General Manager, Eastern Railway. The present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been preferred against the Judgment dated 20th July, 2011 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the "Claims Tribunal") in Claim Application No. OA00012/2002. By the said Judgment, the learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim petition filed by the appellant.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that a claim petition was filed before the Claims Tribunal disclosing therein that on 4th December, 2001, father of the claimant was going to Sasaram from Patna-Gaya-Mughalsarai Fast Passenger/741 UP after purchasing a valid journey ticket. In the claim petition, the claimant has disclosed the ticket number also. It was asserted that while the train reached near Sasaram Railway Station, due to heavy rush and jerk, the father of the claimant/appellant fell down from the running train, as a result of which he died on the spot itself. Autopsy was done on the dead body and U.D. case was also registered. Thereafter, the present claim petition was filed. In the claim petition in support of his claim, the claimant/appellant had brought on record before the Claims Tribunal inquest report, photo copy of ticket, post-mortem examination report and final report submitted by the police. The claimant also filed an affidavit in support of the claim case. The claimant was only examined as a witness in support of the case. In this case, the railway appeared and filed written statement. Besides filing written statement, no evidence was brought on record by the respondent/railway. The claimant was cross-examined before the Claims Tribunal. One more important document was brought on record by the Claimant/appellant Ext. A-2 i.e. a report of the Station Master, which was prepared on the basis of report of Patrolman/Gangman, who disclosed that a run over dead body was found near the railway track. The learned Claims Tribunal after hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record has come to the conclusion that it was not a case of untoward incident and rejected the claim petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant, while assailing the impugned Judgment, has argued that the police report, i.e. Ext. A-7 is sufficient to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, who was travelling with a valid railway ticket and died due to fall from the running train. Besides the police report, the evidence of claimant was also on record. The post-mortem report also makes it clear that it was a case of death due to fall from the train and it was not a case of run over. He submits that the learned Claims Tribunal only on conjectures and surmises has come to the conclusion that it was a case of run over and not a case of fall from the train. On the aforesaid ground, the Judgment of the Claims Tribunal has been assailed.