AMITAV K.GUPTA,J. - (1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 12.08.2013 in case no. O.A. (IIU)/RNC/2009/0076 passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, rejecting the appellant 's claim for compensation.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the claim application it is averred that Satyendra Dusadh (since deceased) was working as U.G. Loader in Madhaipur Colliery of M/s Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Pandeshwar Area in West Bengal. That on 09.03.2009, he boarded the train at Raniganj for Dhanbad from where he had to board Ganga Sutlaj Express Train no. 3307 to go to his native place at Dehri-On-Sone, Bihar. That he was travelling on a general IInd Class railway ticket. That on account of Holi festival, due to jostle and rush of passengers, he slipped and fell down from the train. Due to the fall he came under the wheels of the Train and sustained multiple injuries resulting in his death. The dead body of Satyendra Dusadh was found lying between Pole no. 344/12-344/14 near Hazaribagh Road Railway Station. It is argued by the learned counsel that the learned tribunal has not appreciated the fact that a U.D. case was registered by G.R.P.S., Gomoh on 10.03.2009, bearing case no. 03/09 on the fardbeyan of one Jhalwa, the keyman of Hazaribagh Railway station, who found the dead body of the deceased at 6 A.M. in the early morning of 10.03.2009, as per Ext. A-1, i.e., the F.I.R. and the statement of Jhawla, the Keyman, have been marked as Ext. A-2. It is urged by the learned counsel that the learned tribunal has disbelieved the statement of the appellant on surmises and conjectures, despite the fact that the appellant-A.W.-1 was examined and his statement has remained uncontroverted in cross-examination by the Respondent/Railway. It is argued by the counsel that the tribunal has committed an error by observing that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger because the ticket was not found on the body of the deceased. To substantiate the contention learned counsel has relied on the decisions reported in (1993) ACJ 846 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Rajkumari and Another v. Union of India which has also been relied upon by the learned Judge on Madhya Pradesh High Court in the judgment dated 24.07.2012 in the case of Mrs. Shanti and Others v. Union of India. It is contended that the impugned order is fit to be set aside and the appellant/claimant is entitled to be paid the compensation under Section 124-A of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act with interest from the date of the application.
(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-railway has contended that the impugned order requires no interference as the learned Tribunal had framed three issues namely, "whether Satyendra Dusadh, S/o late Surajdeo Dusadh was a bona fide passenger as alleged ; "whether any untoward incident as defined in Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989 occurred to Satyendra Dusadh, while travelling in local train on 12.03.2009 at Pole no. 344/12-14 ;" and "whether the applicant is entitled for the compensation as claimed by him -. It is submitted that after considering the documents and evidences on record the learned Tribunal has decided the issues against the appellant, hence, the appellant/claimant is not entitled to any compensation. It is canvassed that the learned Tribunal has considered the fact that the claimant has asserted on 09.03.2009 that the deceased was travelling on the Train from Raniganj to Dhanbad and from Dhanbad he had to board Ganga-Sutluj Express, Train no. 3307 to proceed to his native place at Dehri-On-Sone. The learned Tribunal has held that neither any ticket was produced by the appellant nor any evidence was adduced to prove that the ticket was purchased by the deceased moreover the inquest report filed by the appellant was not certified and the date and time of preparation was noted as 10.03.2009 at 12:45 Hours, but, no ticket was found. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger in terms of Section 2(29) of the Railways Act. It is contended that with regard to issue no. 2, the learned tribunal has held that there is no explanation as to why the claimant A.W.-1 Mithun Kumar did not try to contact or locate the whereabouts of his father, i.e., the deceased who did not reach his native place on 10.03.2009. In fact, the family of the deceased went to the police station, Gomoh only on 12.03.2009, i.e., after three days of the incident. The learned Tribunal has also observed that the said appellant-Mithun Kumar did not lodge any F.I.R., regarding loss of his father 's mobile. It is urged that the learned Tribunal has observed that the sequence of facts as narrated in the claim does not corroborate the manner of occurrence and has based its finding on the basis of the evidence on record that no such incident was recorded in the station diary of Station Superintendent, Hazaribagh Road Railway station. Moreover, the appellant had failed to disclose as to how he got the details of his father 's journey by different modes of transport from his place of work to go to Dhanbad and to Dehri-On-Sone on 09.03.2009. It is argued that in fact, from the nature of the injuries, it appears that the deceased was leaning out of the door due to which he must have been hit by the electric pole and the injury is self-inflicted on account of negligence and carelessness of the deceased which is covered by the exception clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso to Section 124 A, hence, the appellant is not entitled to any compensation.;