Talukdar, J. - (1.) THIS is an Appeal which is directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd November, 2008 passed in Claim Application No. U/756/2005 by the Kolkata Bench of the Railway Claims Tribunal. The claim application for compensation filed by the Appellant, Sushant Pal alias Susanta Kumar Pal, on account of death of his son on 13.4.2005 while he was travelling from Kanthi to Santragachhi through Santragachhi Local near Bagnan Railway Station was dismissed mainly on the ground that the Appellant could not produce the valid ticket issued on the date of journey and that the deceased was a bona fide passenger was disbelieved by the Tribunal and the Claim Application was accordingly dismissed. Against the said order passed by the Railway Tribunal the present Appeal has been filed by the father of the deceased.
(2.) SHRI Banerjee on behalf of the Appellant has placed before us a number of points." According to SHRI Banerjee, the Railway Tribunal had referred to the documents being Exbts. R1, R2 and R3, i.e. Report of the Senior D.S.C. of the R.P.F. Kharagpur, Memo of Booking Agent of Kanthi and Surathal Report, which were exhibited by the Tribunal without tendering the same in evidence and in the absence of any formal proof. According to Shri Banerjee, the son of the Appellant being the deceased had a valid ticket being No. 00330 remains undisputed. The fact that he met with an accident and he was taken to the Hospital by Mithu Hazra, P.W.2, has also not been challenged. Shri Banerjee has shown from the Admission Register of the Uluberia Sub-Divisional Hospital (Exbt. A12), that the deceased was admitted by Prasad Hazra, i.e. P.W.2, and the history- sheet of the said hospital (Exbt. A13) shows that the deceased had a Railway Ticket from Kanthi to Santragachhi bearing No. 00330 dated 13.4.2005, which was made over to P.W.2. On the basis of the same, Shri Banerjee has submitted that simply relying on the said three documents, Exbts. R1, R2 and R3, the Tribunal has concluded that the son of the Appellant was not a bona fide passenger and the order under appeal was liable to be set aside. Shri Bandyopadhyay for the South-Eastern Railway Authorities has opposed the prayer, made by Shri Banerjee. According to Shri Bandyopadhyay, when it has been proved that the ticket was issued on an earlier date, i.e. on 12.4.2005, as evident from the report of the Booking Agent of Kanthi (Exbt. R.2), there was absolutely no case made out for compensation.
(3.) AFTER we have heard Shri Banerjee and Shri Bandyopadhyay for the respective parties, we are prima facie of the opinion that the order under appeal cannot be sustained for the following reasons : 1) The contents of Exbt R1 (Report of the Senior D.S.C. of R.P.F.) showing that there was no abnormality of train speed which resulted in sudden fall of the Appellant's son due to application of break, in our opinion, was taken into account by the Tribunal without any formal proof. Not only that the same was taken into evidence without giving any opportunity to the Claimant to rebut the contents thereof, but also who has proved it and how the same has been proved and in what manner, remains a mystery. It was not incumbent upon the Tribunal to have placed any reliance whatsoever on the same. 2) Similarly, the Memo of one Ranjit Mahapatra, Booking Agent of Kanthi Railway Station (Exbt. R2 at page 46 of the trial Court record) showing serial No. 00326 to 00331 was sold on 12.4.2005 and serial No. 00332 to 00335 was sold on 13.4.2005, on the basis of which the Tribunal concluded that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and also in respect of the contents of Exbt. R2, the manner in which the same was read into evidence by the Tribunal is completely unknown to law. The said Ranjit Kumar Mahapatra was not examined preventing the Claimant from cross- examining him and the formal proof of the said document (Exb). R2) leaves much to be desired. As such, the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger cannot stand to reason simply on the basis of the said document. 3) It cannot also be accepted that the death did not take place in the manner simply on the basis of the report filed by the Senior D.S.C. which we have very carefully perused (at page 48 of the lower Court record). AFTER all, what Tribunal had read as Exbt. R1 was nothing else but a note and order-sheet signed by the Senior D.S.C. being filed on behalf of the Railway Authorities. How the said report was taken note of by the Tribunal passes beyond our comprehension. 4) Tribunal lost sight of a very important aspect of the matter, i.e. Exbt. A12, which shows that the deceased was admitted in the Uluberia Sub-Divisional Hospital by Prasad Hazra, P.W.2. The history-sheet of the said hospital (Exbt. A13) speaks of a Railway Ticket for Kanthi to Santragachhi bearing No. 00330 dated 13.4.2005. 5) In the absence of any formal proof of the two documents (Exbts. R1 and R2), how could Tribunal over lopked the documents being Exbts. A12 and A13? 6) Evidence of Mithu alias Prasad Hazra, who was an eve-witness, was also very casually handled by the Tribunal. It came to the conclusion that as to whether he was actually an eye-witness was in doubt. In the process, the Tribunal lost sight of Exbts. A12 and A13, which speak quite otherwise. Accordingly, the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, in Claim Application No. U/756/2005 dated 3.11.2008 is set aside. The entire matter is now sent on remand. The Tribunal after receiving the matter on remand would proceed ate novo and reconsider the entire issue in the light of the discussions held hereinabove on the basis of the Claim Application. It would be open for the Tribunal to take further or fresh evidence with the same liberty reserved for the Claimant. The Tribunal would complete the entire exercise and write a fresh judgment within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the receipt of the record without fail.;