D.N.UPADHYAY, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.11.2012 passed by the Railway Claim Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in connection with Case No. TAU/RNC/2010/0098 whereby the application for grant of compensation filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, is that the deceased along with his sister Pummi AW4, uncle Sushil Thakur AW2 and cousin brother Mukesh Thakur AW3 had boarded train no.8182 ChapraTataKatihar Express on 24.01.2004 at Barouni railway station for going to Tata Nagar. On the next morning i.e. on 25.01.2005 when the train left Adityapur railway station, deceased Dublu Thakur, who was standing near the wash basin of the compartment, suddenly fell down from the running train, sustained injuries and died. Immediately the train was stopped by pulling chain. The companion who were travelling with the deceased got down from the train, went near the injured and reported the matter to G.R.P. The fardbeyan of Mukesh Kumar Thakur was recorded at Platform no.5 and after that other formalities like inquest report, dead body chalan was prepared and then post mortem on the dead body was done. The father of the deceased filed application for grant of compensation in lieu of the death of his son Dublu Thakur and further adduced evidence in support of his contention but the learned Tribunal has been pleased to dismiss the claim application and hence this appeal.
(3.) THE appellant has assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the 2. ground that the finding of the learned Tribunal is highly erroneous, beyond the record and based on surmises and conjectures. The Tribunal has also held that no valid ticket was produced by the claimant to justify that the deceased was bonafide passenger ignoring R3 which is the document produced by the respondent. At the top of the document R3, it is written that on the date of journey of the deceased i.e. on 24.01.2004 four tickets were issued for Barouni to Tata Nagar. Needless to mention that the deceased was travelling with his three relatives and that corroborates that those four tickets were purchased by the deceased and his family members. As a matter of fact, the deceased was removed from the railway track to the platform and then to the post mortem house and in course of handling the body the tickets which were in his possession might have been lost somewhere. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the argument and submitted that no ticket was produced either by the companion passengers of the deceased or by the claimant. Furthermore, the injury was appearing only on the head of the deceased. It is expected that the deceased might have been adventurous and he was standing on the gate exposing his body outside the compartment and in course of that he sustained injury due to dash of his bead with a poll and therefore, the incident comes within exception covered by proviso (b) of Section 124A of the Railway Act, 1989. The injuries inflicted to the deceased was due to his own negligence and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly refused to grant compensation.;