- (1.) THIS first appeal is at the instance of a claimant in a proceeding under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, and is directed against an award dated 29th April, 2008, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata bench, thereby dismissing the said application on the ground that the claimant failed to prove the bona fide as well as accidental fall and the resultant death of also failed to produce any eyewitness to prove the accidental fall causing death of her husband. Being dissatisfied, the claimant has come up with the present first appeal.
(2.) THE appellant before us lodged a claim under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 thereby praying for compensation of Rs. 4 lakh for the death of her husband on the allegation that on 4th March, 2005 while he was travelling from Sainthia to Bolpur by Down Ganodevta Express with a valid second class ticket, he accidentally fell down from the running train between Sainthia and Bataspur and consequently, died. The application was opposed by the railway authority by filing written statement and its defence may be summed up thus: a) The claim-application was not maintainable as the applicant had no personal knowledge and the statements made in the claim-application appeared to be hearsay. It was denied that the victim was a passenger of the said train. As per claim-application, the deceased was a hawker, but according to the rules of the Railway, a vendor is neither a passenger nor a railway employee so as to attract the definition of "passenger" within the meaning of the Railways Act. Ganadevta Express with a valid second class ticket on 4th March, 2005, and that during the course of travelling, he accidentally fell down from the train. c) According to the Station Manager's report, there was no record of such incident at Bataspur on 4th March, 2005 and the post-mortem report was merely a routine-record and did not prove any untoward incident.
(3.) AT the time of hearing, the claimant herself and one Bikash Das, an eyewitness of the incident, gave evidence in support of the claim, while none appeared on behalf of the Railway authority to controvert the evidence given by those two witnesses.;