Devi Prasad Singh and V.D. Chaturvedi, JJ. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Jaspreet Singh and Mr. P.K. Singh learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Asit Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the Union of India.
(2.) PRESENT appeal has been preferred under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the impugned award dated 12.9.2002, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellants for payment of compensation on account of death of the deceased in a railway accident. Brief facts, borne out from the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties are that the deceased Shiv Shankar Singh, husband of the appellant No. 1 and father of the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 was an army personnel and on the fateful night of 25/ 26.4.1996 was travelling in Lucknow Mail from Lucknow to Delhi. When the train reached near Kama Station of district Hardoi, on account of the sudden jerk, he fell down from the train and sustained serious injuries. He was hospitalised in District Hospital, Hardoi where he expired. Inquest report as well post-mortem report were prepared. The wife of the deceased Sudha Singh and his sons Shivanshu Singh and Divanshu Singh had filed the claim petition with Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000. It has not been disputed that the deceased was travelling in Lucknow Mail and going from Lucknow to Delhi. Before Tribunal, one Prem Kant Dubey who was stated to have gone with the deceased to see him off had filed an affidavit averring therein that on 25.4.96, the deceased Shiv Shanker Singh came to him. He wanted to go to Delhi. Since there was much luggage, Prem Kant Dubey had accompanied the deceased to the Railway Station, Lucknow. He looked after the luggage of the deceased and the deceased went to purchase the ticket. However, the statement of Prem Kant Dubey has not been believed by the Tribunal mainly for two reasons, firstly, the ticket was not recovered and secondly, the deceased should have travelled on a military warrant issued by the Military Department after requisite entry in the M.C.O., Lucknow. No record of M.C.O. was produced. No evidence has been led before the Tribunal that the deceased was going to resume his duty at Jammu via Delhi. The statement of the witness who had given company to the deceased has been further disbelieved on the ground that in case the deceased was going to resume duty at Jammu, then under Army Rules, he was entitled to possess a military warrant or concessional ticket issued by the M.C.O. but as mentioned above, the facility was not availed.
(3.) IT has been submitted by appellant's counsel that the military warrant is issued to the army personnel only in case they move from the shortest route. Why the deceased was going through Delhi is not ascertainable. Naturally, the military warrant might have been issued by the army only in case the deceased would have been travelling straightaway from Lucknow to Jammu by train which was undoubtedly available on account of connectivity between Lucknow and Jammu. For what reason, the deceased was going to Jammu via Delhi is a fact which may not have been known to the dependants of the deceased. During cross-examination, Prem Kant Dubey, the witness produced on behalf of the claimants stated that he did not know anything about the military warrant. Possession of the ticket has been disbelieved also on the ground that there is no explanation on record as to why the deceased was going to Jammu by Lucknow Mail via Delhi. The finding recorded by the Tribunal seems to be incorrect appreciation of facts. Once a statement has been made by the witness that the deceased was possessing a ticket and Prem Kant Dubey, the witness had gone along with the deceased up to railway station, then ordinarily the said statement should have been believed by the Tribunal unless it is proved that the witness had not given company up to railway station. The reason as to why the deceased had not chosen to board a train straightaway from Lucknow to Jammu seems to be irrelevant ground to disbelieve the state- ment of fact with regard to possession of ticket. There may be so many reasons which might have compelled the deceased to go to Jammu via Delhi rather than going to Jammu directly from Lucknow by boarding a train. The deceased must have got some work at Delhi and that is why he had chosen to go to Jammu via Delhi. Needless to say that it was not possible for the deceased to have military warrant to travel by a longer route, i.e., from Luck- now to Jammu via Delhi.;