Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 729 (PAT)

Bhola Chauhan v. Union of India

2012-05-04

SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA

body2012
JUDGMENT : Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21st August, 2009 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred as to the 'Tribunal') in Claim Case No. OA 00207 of 2004, whereby the claim application claiming compensation of rupees four lacs for the death of the applicant's son who fell down from the running train. Shortly stated, the facts of the case are that on 29th May, 2004 while the deceased was coming from Warsaliganj to Nawada by Kuil-Gaya Passenger train he fell down from the running train due to the rush of the passengers and sudden jerk in the train. The deceased was taken to Hospital at Warsaliganj. The doctors at Warsaliganj seeing the seriousness of injury referred the deceased to Nawada Sadar Hospital where he was further referred to Patna Medical College & Hospital, Patna and in course of treatment he however died on 6th June, 2004. Fardbeyan of the father of the deceased Bhola Chouhan (applicant) was recorded by the Pirbahore Police Station Patna which was referred to Nawada G.R.P. where UD Case No. 8 of 2004 was registered. The post mortem of the dead body was performed at PMCH, Patna. Police investigated the matter and submitted police report. After completion of necessary required formalities, the father of the deceased filed the aforesaid claim application claiming compensation of rupees four lacs as prescribed under the rules. The applicant in support of his claim adduced oral as also documentary evidence. The Railway administration appeared in the said claim case and filed the written statement, however, no evidences whatsoever oral or documentary was adduced to counter the claim. The Tribunal upon considering evidences on record found that there are discrepancy in the evidences adduced on behalf of the applicant, as such, discarded all the evidence and accordingly dismissed the claim. The applicant being aggrieved by such dismissal, preferred the present miscellaneous appeal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that even though the oral evidence as also the documentary evidences amply establishes the basic fact of the death of the deceased who fell down from the running train as stated in the claim application resulting in his death. The applicant being aggrieved by such dismissal, preferred the present miscellaneous appeal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that even though the oral evidence as also the documentary evidences amply establishes the basic fact of the death of the deceased who fell down from the running train as stated in the claim application resulting in his death. Apart from the oral evidence of the claimant, the father of the deceased, evidence of AW 2 Rekha Devi, wife of the deceased, evidence of AW 3 Kamlesh Chouhan who was the person who got the ticket purchased for the deceased at Warsaliganj Railway Station and boarded him into the train in question for his travel from Warsaliganj to Nawada as also evidence of AW 4 Sudhir Chouhan, who categorically stated that he himself saw the deceased falling down from the train at the Warsaliganj railway crossing. The tribunal for having no valid justification did not rely on the evidences of AW 3 and AW 4 despite the statement made in their affidavits as also the cross examination before the Tribunal, nothing worth came on the record so as to discard their evidences. This apart, the documentary evidence i.e. the fardbeyan of the father of the deceased (Exhibit-5) as also the first information report followed by the final report submitted by the police vide Exhibit-7 narrates about the untoward incident, however, there may be some minor discrepancy, but the very foundational fact did not change. It is further contended that after the death of the son of the applicant, the post mortem of the dead body was held. The doctor after performing the post mortem submitted the report vide Exhibit-A/6 which clearly mentions about the head injury the cause of death of the deceased and the witnesses during the police investigation have also stated about the aforesaid injury. In other words, it is submitted that the applicant has substantiated its claim by oral as well as by documentary evidence, moreso, the proceeding being summary in nature required to be disposed of in light of the provisions of section 18 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 a beneficial legislation, and as such, the Tribunal ought to have adopted a liberal approach in appreciating the evidence and should have considered in its correct perspective. 3. On the other hand, Mr. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Bijoy Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Railway Administration fairly submits that although no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the Railway, however the claim was denied in its written statement, as such the applicant was required to prove the claim. It is further contended that on perusal of the affidavits filed on behalf of the witnesses AW 1 to AW 4 as also their respective oral evidences before the Tribunal read with the fardbeyan (Exhibit-5) as also the police report (Exhibit-7), it would appear that the claim of the applicant that his son fell down from the running could not be properly substantiated. Besides, on perusal of the post mortem report (Exhibit-A/6) it would appear that the deceased sustained only head injury and no other injury was found and in normal course in such type of accident it is expected that he should have sustained some more injuries, and therefore, it appears that the deceased did not fall down from the running train. This apart, it is further submitted that the date of occurrence is 29th May, 2004 and the deceased died on 06.06.2004, however, in between the aforesaid period no case was registered. The first information report was registered only on 19.06.2004 by the Nawada Rail police and a final report was submitted on 21.07.2004 (Exhibit-7). The police report is also not supporting the case of applicant. With respect to the age of the deceased, learned counsel submits that although the post mortem report and the police report mentions the age of the deceased as twenty two years, however the age appears to be fourteen years from the School certificate, and as such, there is a discrepancy in the age as well. It is accordingly submitted that the order under appeal is correct. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 4. Upon considering the rival submissions of the parties, it would appear that the only controversy is about the genuineness of the claim. According to the applicant the deceased died in the untoward incident as he fell down from the running train due to heavy rush of passengers in the bogie and also on account of the sudden jerk in the train while it was moving. According to the applicant the deceased died in the untoward incident as he fell down from the running train due to heavy rush of passengers in the bogie and also on account of the sudden jerk in the train while it was moving. On the other hand, on behalf of the railway, in nut-shell, it has been submitted that the manner of incident, its reporting, non-examination of any of the co-passengers, discrepancy in the statement, in the affidavits, in the oral evidence and the contents of some of the documents makes the entire claim to be doubtful, and in such circumstances, the claim could not be allowed. It is an admitted position that in face of the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant oral as also documentary in support of the claim, there is no counter evidence on record on behalf of the Railway administration, and as such, only applicant's evidence fall for consideration. The evidences of AWs 1 & 2 who are not the eye witness in any manner, may not be of much help. However, the witness namely, Kamlesh Chouhan, AW 3 stated in his evidence and affidavit that after purchasing a valid second class train ticket he got the deceased boarded in the train in question at Warsaliganj Railway station. The next witness namely, Sudhir Chouhan, AW 4 categorically stated that he saw the deceased falling down from the train and sustaining injury at the Warsaliganj Railway crossing. The witness was cross-examined, however, nothing material could come in their cross-examination so as to discard his evidence that he saw the deceased falling down from the train. The police after investigation submitted the final report (Exhibit-7) in which police recorded the statement of two persons who have stated that he learnt that a boy was found lying in an injured condition near the Warsaliganj railway crossing who was taken to Warsaliganj Hospital who had sustained a head injury. In the report it is mentioned that at the place of occurrence no blood was found and other witnesses also did not say about the deceased falling down from the train. However, in the said report it is not mentioned who are the witness who could not say about the fall of the deceased from the train. It is equally not expected that any blood could be found on the spot after lapse of several days of the occurrence. However, in the said report it is not mentioned who are the witness who could not say about the fall of the deceased from the train. It is equally not expected that any blood could be found on the spot after lapse of several days of the occurrence. The other document on the record is Exhibit-A/5 in which there is a mention about the death due to falling down from the train. It is well settled law that in the matter of appreciation of evidence in the proceeding arising out of the beneficial legislation that the standard of evidence or scrutiny could not be of the standard as tested in the normal criminal trial. The evidences adduced on behalf of the applicant in its totality, more so in absence of any counter evidence, in my opinion even though there may be some discrepancy, the sum and substance of the evidence cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, the aforesaid claim application could not have been dismissed disallowing the claim on account of some discrepancy in the evidence which is not material. 5. For the reasons and discussions made above, the order dated 21st August, 2009 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in Claim Case No. OA 00207 of 2004 is, hereby set aside. The Railway administration is directed to pay the compensation of rupees four lacs as prescribed under the rules with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its payment within a period of three months from today. 6. Let the lower Court's record be sent down without delay. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of with the above observations/directions.