Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 707 (PAT)

Maghu Sah v. Union of India

2012-05-01

RAKESH KUMAR

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Anil Singh, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Union of India through General Manager, Eastern Railway. 2. The present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,1987 has been preferred against the Judgment dated 20.07.2011 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench,Patna (hereinafter referred to as the “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Application No.OA00012 /2002. By the said Judgment , the learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim petition filed by the appellant. 3. Short fact of the case is that a claim petition was filed before the Claims Tribunal disclosing therein that on 04.12.2001, father of the claimant was going to Sasaram from Patna-Gaya –Mughalsarai Fast Passenger/741 UP after purchasing a valid journey ticket. In the claim petition, the claimant has disclosed the ticket number also . It was asserted that while the train reached near Sasaram Railway Station, due to heavy rush and jerk, the father of the claimant /appellant fell down from the running train, as a result of which he died on the spot itself. Autopsy was done on the dead body and U.D. case was also registered. Thereafter, the present claim petition was filed. In the claim petition in support of his claim, the claimant/appellant had brought on record before the Claims Tribunal inquest report, photo copy of ticket, postmortem examination report and final report submitted by the police. The claimant also filed an affidavit in support of the claim case. The claimant was only examined as a witness in support of the case. In this case, the railway appeared and filed written statement. Besides filing written statement, no evidence was brought on record by the respondent/railway. The claimant was cross-examined before the Claims Tribunal. One more important document was brought on record by the Claimant/appellant Ext.A-2 i.e. a report of the Station Master, which was prepared on the basis of report of Patrolman/Gangman, who disclosed that a run over dead body was found near the railway track. The learned Claims Tribunal after hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record has come to the conclusion that it was not a case of untoward incident and rejected the claim petition. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal after hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record has come to the conclusion that it was not a case of untoward incident and rejected the claim petition. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the impugned Judgment, has argued that the police report, i.e. Ext.A-7 is sufficient to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, who was travelling with a valid railway ticket and died due to fall from the running train. Besides the police report, the evidence of claimant was also on record. The postmortem report also makes it clear that it was a case of death due fall from the train and it was not a case of run over. He submits that the learned Claims Tribunal only on conjectures and surmises has come to the conclusion that it was a case of run over and not a case of fall from the train. On the aforesaid ground, the Judgment of the Claims Tribunal has been assailed. Sri Anil Singh ,learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent/Union of India submits that falsity of the case is proved from the fact that the dead body was firstly noticed by a Gangman, who reported to the Station Master indicating therein that a run over dead body was found on the railway track, which is evident from Ext. A-2. He further submits that immediately thereafter, an inquest report was prepared on the dead body. From the dead body, clothes were found, which has been mentioned in column no.7 of the Inquest Report. He submits that since the deceased was not having railway ticket nor he was a bona fide passenger, no recovery of Railway Ticket was mentioned in the inquest report. Non-mentioning of the recovery of the ticket in inquest report is corroborative of the fact that at subsequent stage the police fabricated final report, wherein recovery of ticket was shown and even ticket number was also mentioned. It was further argued that the claimant, though was not an eye witness to the occurrence, had explained everything as if he was accompanying the deceased. The statement made on oath by the claimant prima facie appears to be well planned and false, which was not required to be relied upon in view of the fact mentioned in the inquest report. The statement made on oath by the claimant prima facie appears to be well planned and false, which was not required to be relied upon in view of the fact mentioned in the inquest report. He submits that from the injury, which was found in the postmortem examination report, it appears that death of the deceased had occurred due to dash with running train. He has also argued that the deceased was resident of Sasaram, whereas in the claim petition, a story was cooked up that the deceased was coming from Patna through Patna-Gaya Passenger. It has also been argued that in the claim petition initially the claimant had mentioned the date of accident as 04.12.2001, but the police report indicates that so called ticket recovered from the pocket of the deceased was dated 03.12.2001. While referring postmortem examination report, he submits that the postmortem examination was conducted on 04.12.2001 at 12.30 P.M. During the autopsy, rigor mortis was found on the body of the deceased, which was indicative of the fact that the death had occurred about 12 to 13 hours back. Meaning thereby that in any event accident had taken place on 03.12.2001 and not on 04.12.2001 as claimed in the claim petition. He submits that at a subsequent stage after noticing the fact that the claimant had committed error of mentioning the date as 4.12.2001, in a calculated manner, after nine years a petition was filed by the claimant for amending/ correcting date in the claim petition as 03.12.2001 to be the date of accident. On the aforesaid ground, it has been submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly not allowed the claim petition. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is true that after nine years, a petition was filed for making correction in the claim petition, but the learned Claims Tribunal did not pass any order on his claim petition for making correction and, as such, learned Claims Tribunal has committed serious error. 6. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record including lower court record. 6. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record including lower court record. Without going into the detail of the case, the Court is of the opinion that once inquest report was prepared immediately after recovery of the dead body on the railway track,non-mentioning of the recovery of ticket in column 7 of the inquest report was sufficient to come to the conclusion that the deceased was not having any railway ticket. At subsequent stage, though in the police report, it has been mentioned regarding recovery of railway ticket, the Court is of the opinion that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly doubted the conduct of the police officer. Moreover, if in the inquest report, there was not mentioning of the recovery of ticket, at subsequent stage mentioning recovery of the ticket creates serious doubt on the case of the claimant. Besides this, no other reliable evidence was brought on record save and except evidence of the claimant himself, which was not sufficient to prove the case. 7. After going through the materials available on record, the Court is of the opinion that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed no error in rejecting the claim petition. Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed. ?