- (1.) DEVI Prasad Singh, J. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (in short the Act) against the judgment and order dated 18. 12. 1998 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Claim Petition No, OA 9700057. The Tribunal had declined to grant any compensation to the appellant on the ground that the appellant has failed to lead cogent and trustworthy evidence to prove that he suffered injuries on account of untoward incident.
(2.) IN brief, the facts as emerge from the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, are that the appellant is a Monthly Seasonal Ticket (in short MST) holder and was pursuing his studies in I. T. I. , Barabanki. He is resident of Lucknow. The appellant possessed MST No. 1165969 to travel in second class. On 30. 11. 1996, the appellant had gone to Barabanki from Lucknow to attend his classes. IN the evening of the fateful day i. e. 30. 11. 1996 he had boarded the train No. 5207 UP-Barauni-Amritsar Express after pursuing his studies. After boarding the train he has come to know that the compartment in which he has entered, is occupied by army personnel. The appellant made a request to army personnel that he be permitted to travel in the same compartment up to the next station because he was not aware that the compartment was reserved. However, it has been alleged by the appellant that he was thrown out by the army personnel and in consequence thereof he suffered grievous injuries and admitted to hospital. When the appellant was thrown out by the army personnel, both the legs were imputed just below the knee. On account of the consequential injuries caused by throwing out, his one leg was imputed just below the knee and the other leg from the juncture of toe and leg fingers. The appellant filed a petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow for awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/. Before the Tribunal the appellant has filed his own affidavit as well as the affidavit of P. W. 2 H. C. Sahu. On behalf of the respondent affidavit of Sri Pradeep Kumar, Chief Commercial Inspector the statements of appellant and GRP Constable have been filed. During the course of trial before the Tribunal, it was submitted by the appellant's counsel that the appellant was not aware of the fact that the compartment was reserved for army personnel. Hence, he boarded the train to reach Lucknow where he permanently resides. However, the army personnel had forcibly pushed the appellant outside the train resulting in serious injuries permanently disabling the appellant for whole of his life. It has not been disputed by the respondent that the appellant was not possessed of MST and he was not authorised to board the train on 30. 11. 1996 to arrive his destination at Lucknow. On account of having possession of the MST, the appellant shall be deemed to be bonafide passenger and has right to board the train at Railway Station, Barabanki. The Tribunal had disbelieved the appellant's claim on the ground that H. C. Sahu failed to establish that he was an eye-witness and he had seen the action of army personnel, However, the Tribunal also relied upon the affidavit filed by the respondent and to proceed to record a finding that appellant has failed to establish the manner of the incident on the fateful day. The observation made by the Tribunal is reproduced as under: "but in spite of this what can be inferred is whether the manner in which incident is said to happen as spoken by these two persons is capable of being accepted as true versions as what transpired on that very day. . . . . . . . It is very clear that both the parties have not put forth the real thing that happened on the particular day. . . . . " Thus the Tribunal has disbelieved the statement made by both the sides and rejected the appellant's claim.
(3.) WE are of view that the Tribunal has failed to discharge its obligation by incorrectly considering and appreciating the evidence on record. It has not been disputed that trie appellant is resident of Lucknow and it has also not been disputed that the appellant possessed MST and he was authorised to board the tram in question. The pleading raised by the appellant to the effect that he was pursuing his studies in I. T. I. Barabanki has also not been disputed. It has also not been disputed that the appellant suffered injury at Barabanki and he was taken to hospital from Railway track by the GRP constable. The mitigating facts, circumstances and evidence on record amply proves that the appellant had gone to Barabanki to attend his classes and after boarding the train, under certain circumstances, he fell down resulting in serious injuries. The facts, circumstances and material evidence on the record point out that he suffered injuries in the incident in question after boarding the train. The question cropped up whether the appellant was pushed out by the army personnel or not? The submission of the appellant has been disbelieved by the tribunal on the ground that this plea was raised by showing in the affidavit and it was not pleaded originally. Accordingly, a finding has been recorded that the incident in question cannot be treated as untoward incident under Section 124-A of the Railways Act.;