Judgment : Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 13.8.2010, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench in Claim Application No.OA(IIu) No.180/RCT/NGP/2008, awarding claim from the Railways in the sum of Rs.1,61,400/-with 7% per annum in default of payment, the present appeal was filed by the Railways. 2. The respondent/claimant on 24.11.2008 filed application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 in respect of the claim for compensation due to injury to his right eye as a result of untoward incident. The respondent/claimant stated that on 22.11.2007 he boarded Amritsar-Nanded Sachkhand Express No.2716 from Parbhani Railway Station for going to Nanded on a season ticket. When the train was running between Purna-Chudawa stations, 3 to 4 unknown boys of about 15-18 years old standing near Govindpur village suddenly started throwing stones towards the moving train and one of the stones hit the respondent on his right eye and head, causing him severe injury. The train reached Nanded in 20-25 minutes when the co-passengers took him to Railway Station Chowki at Nanded where Police Inspector Shri Bansode sent him for medical examination to civil hospital with Police Constable Shri More. He was treated in Civil Hospital, Nanded for two days and was discharged and thereafter he went to Jalna and Hyderabad for operation etc.. He suffered 30% blindness due to injury and also incurred expenses. He, thus, claimed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of compensation. 3. The appellant filed written statement and denied the claim in entirety stating that no such incident took place as alleged and neither the guard nor the passengers reported accordingly. F.I.R. was lodged by the respondent for the first time on 30.8.2008 i.e. after almost nine months and when the respondent himself was working as a Assistant Public Prosecutor in Court, he could not be expected to lodge F.I.R. after such a long time and for which there is no explanation. Upon in-house enquiry made by the Railways no such incident was at all disclosed anywhere. According to the respondent, he was having seasonal ticket but that was not valid for travelling by Superfast Express like Sachkhand Express and therefore, he was not a bona fide passenger particularly because he did not pay extra fair for Superfast Express train. There was no untoward incident as claimed by the respondent and the claim was therefore not maintainable. According to the respondent, he was having seasonal ticket but that was not valid for travelling by Superfast Express like Sachkhand Express and therefore, he was not a bona fide passenger particularly because he did not pay extra fair for Superfast Express train. There was no untoward incident as claimed by the respondent and the claim was therefore not maintainable. The respondent filed some documents and tendered his affidavit evidence. The appellant did not examine any witness. The Tribunal thereafter heard parties and held that respondent was a bona fide passenger and injury suffered by the respondent was due to untoward incident. It, thus, made an award. Hence, this appeal. 4. In support of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal committed an error in treating the respondent as bona fide passenger when admittedly his seasonal ticket was not valid for Superfast Express and he did not pay extra charges or fair for travelling in a Superfast train. According to him, there was no satisfactory evidence on record placed by the respondent-claimant about the actual incident except his bare word and neither any co-passenger was examined nor the Police Inspector Shri Bansode or Police Constable Shri More were examined to corroborate his version that they had got him medically examined on the same day of incident. Various bills of treatment relied upon by the Tribunal have not at all been proved so also the discharge card allegedly issued by the Ophthalmology Department of the Medical College and the Tribunal erred in relying on the same without insisting for proof thereof. The respondent claimant did not at all explain delay in lodging F.I.R. and there was no explanation whatsoever for the same. The application was barred by limitation. Learned Counsel for the appellant, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim application. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent argued that the discharge card from the Medical College Hospital clearly indicated that the respondent was admitted in the Ophthalmology Department of the said hospital for the treatment on the right eye on the date of incident i.e. on 22.11.2007 and was discharged on 22.11.2007, which strongly corroborates the incident narrated by the respondent/claimant. The discharge card from the said hospital was never denied nor was objected to when exhibited. There is, therefore, no reason to doubt the happening of the incident. The discharge card from the said hospital was never denied nor was objected to when exhibited. There is, therefore, no reason to doubt the happening of the incident. Various medical bills produced on record have not been put to challenge and the injury caused to the respondent has also not been seriously disputed by the appellant. The case of the appellant is fully proved and the Tribunal did not commit any error in awarding compensation for the injury caused due to untoward incident. The learned Counsel for the respondent in the alternative argued that if it is found that the documents of discharge card etc. have not been proved, the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal. 6. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award and the entire record and proceedings of the case. After hearing learned Counsel for the rival parties, following points arise for my determination. (1) Whether the respondent was a bona fide passenger, travelling in the train No.2716? ...Yes. (2) Whether there was an untoward incident dated 22.11.2007 and whether in that untoward incident the respondent suffered injury to his eye due to pelting of stones ? ...As discussed. (3) What order ? ....Appeal is partly allowed. Proceedings of claim petition are remitted to the Tribunal. 7. As to point no.1 : - It is seen from the pleadings of the appellant that the respondent held a season pass for travelling between Parbhani and Nanded and the said pass was not valid for Superfast trains like Sachkhand Express. However, the respondent has produced season ticket on record valid between 19.11.2007 till 18.12.2007 for Superfast train. The appellant has not produced any contrary evidence and therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal to that effect is based on evidence. Hence, I answer point no.1 in the affirmative. 8. As to point no.2 : - The Tribunal has dealt with this point by answering issue no.1. The incident allegedly took place on 22.11.2007 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 30.8.2008. The respondent has offered no explanation whatsoever either in the pleadings or in the evidence about the said delay in lodging F.I.R. with the Police Station. 8. As to point no.2 : - The Tribunal has dealt with this point by answering issue no.1. The incident allegedly took place on 22.11.2007 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 30.8.2008. The respondent has offered no explanation whatsoever either in the pleadings or in the evidence about the said delay in lodging F.I.R. with the Police Station. On the contrary, the respondent pleaded and proved in his evidence that on the very day of incident, he was taken to Railway Police Chowki at Nanded from where P.S.I. Bansode had sent him for medical examination by issuing requisition with Police Constable Shri More. However, neither Shri Bansode nor Shri More was examined nor any record was brought before the Tribunal to prove the said fact. The Tribunal did not dwell upon these aspects of the matter for analyzing the entire evidence. Further the discharge card issued by the Department of Opthalmology Shri Guru Gobindsinghji Memorial Hospital, Nanded at Exh.AW-1/7 though mentions M.L.C. case nowhere shows any details about the history as to how the patient had received the injury. The discharge card does not anywhere show who had referred the said M.L.C. case of the respondent to the hospital. It is true that the discharge card shows treatment to the right eye due to injury and the patient was indoor patient from 22.11.2007 to 24.11.2007 but then there is absolutely no mention about any incident, if any, had taken place in the Railways nor the respondent brought any evidence to prove the said discharge card from the hospital and the other necessary details discussed above. The Tribunal relied upon the said certificate Exh.AW-1/7 from the hospital as a proof without asking for the explanation on the above aspects or without insisting for the proof about the connection of the said injury shown in the discharge card with the incident in question. The respondent all the while stated that he was referred to hospital but did not say that he was referred to Government Medical College Shri Guru Gobindsinghji Memorial Hospital, Nanded as civil hospital is different from the Government Medical College. Non-explanation on the part of the respondent in lodging F.I.R. after nine months in respect of the said incident also made the incident described by the respondent suspicious. Non-explanation on the part of the respondent in lodging F.I.R. after nine months in respect of the said incident also made the incident described by the respondent suspicious. In other words, in my opinion, the Tribunal erred in relying on the discharge certificate Exh.AW-1/7 as a proved document admissible as evidence. The respondent also did not examine P.S.I. Shri Bansode or Police Constable Shri More nor brought the record from the Police Chowki to corroborate the incident. Looking to the totality of circumstances indicated by me above, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue no.1 about untoward incident cannot be countenanced but then the parties to this appeal will have to be given opportunity to prove their respective case before the Tribunal in accordance with law. 9. From the above discussion, it is clear that the Tribunal has not dealt with the issue of untoward incident in a satisfactory manner to come to a sound conclusion. In my opinion, therefore, the interest of justice would be subserved if the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh hearing and disposal on the above points. The Tribunal may also examine whether the application was within limitation or not. I, therefore, answer point no.2 accordingly. Hence, I make the following order. ORDER (i) First Appeal No.418/2011 is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 13.8.2010, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench in Claim Application No.OA(IIu) No.180/RCT/NGP/2008 is set aside. (iii) The proceedings of Claim Application No.OA(IIu) No.180/RCT/NGP/2008 are remitted to the Tribunal for fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with law. (iv) The parties to this appeal are at liberty to amend their respective pleadings and lead evidence. (v) The Tribunal shall endeavour to complete the proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of writ from this Court. (vi) Record and proceedings be sent back forthwith with writ.