IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.367 of 2008 Most.Kamala Devi, W/o Late Gopal Singh, Resident of Village – Nighama, P.S. - Kurtha (Manipur), District – Arawal ...(Appellant in the Tribunal) ....... Appellant. Versus The Union of India represented through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur (Bihar) ......... Respondent in Tribunal ......... Respondent ----------- 12 04.07.2011 Heard Sri Anant Kumar No. 1, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondent/Union of India. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against order dated 22.04.2008 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in Claim Case No. O.A. 000159 of 2004. By the said order the learned Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') has rejected the claim of the appellant. Short fact of the case is that the appellant after the death of her husband filed a claim petition before the Tribunal disclosing therein that on 13.02.2004 while her husband was coming from Gaya to Jehanabad by 06 P.G. train, near Jehanabad due to heavy rush in the train he fell down on the track and thereafter he died. It was claimed that the husband of the appellant was a bona fide passenger and since death had occurred due to fall from the train the claimant was entitled to get compensation. In support of her claim the claimant examined three witnesses. Claimant was examined as A.W. 1, the brother of her husband (Dewar) namely Arjun Kumar was examined as A.W. 2 and one Ram Prit Singh was examined as A.W. 3. In support of the claim the claimant/appellant had brought on record number of documents including statement on oath of three witnesses and copy of post-mortem report of the deceased husband of the claimant which was marked as Exhibit A6. The respondent/ Union of India had disputed the claim and it was asserted that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger but it was a case of suicide committed by the deceased and as such deceased cannot be termed as a bona fide passenger. After hearing the parties the Tribunal had framed number of issues. Most important issue which was framed by the court below was as to whether the husband of the claimant had died in an untoward train accident and it comes under the provisions contained in Section 124A(a)&(b) and also as to whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not. After examining the materials on record including the evidences the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was a case of suicidal death and also the claimant had miserably failed to establish that deceased was a bona fide passenger. Sri Anant Kumar No. 1, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that Police report which was submitted in the case makes it clear that death had occurred due to fall from the train. He further submits that A.W. 2 himself had purchased ticket and handed over to deceased at Gaya station. Of-course after the death the ticket was not produced since it was lost but fact remains that he was a bona fide passenger which was also corroborated by A.W. 1 & A.W. 3. Learned counsel for the Railway has opposed the appeal and emphasized that it was a clear cut case of suicide and as such the Tribunal had rightly rejected the claim petition. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties I have also perused the materials available on record. After going through the impugned order the court is satisfied that the learned Tribunal had discussed the evidence in detail and passed a reasoned order. It is evident that in the post-mortem report injuries were found only on the neck of the deceased. The head of the deceased was chopped from the body and both the portions were lying on different parts of the railway track. The post-mortem report which has been noticed by the Tribunal makes it clear that except injury on the neck there were no other injury on any part of the body. This makes it clear that it was not a case of fall from the train. Had it been a case of death due to fall from a running train there would have been every possibility for injury on other parts of the body which was not found during the post- mortem examination. Similarly, the claim of being bona fide passenger has also been not established by the claimant. There were contradictions in between the statement of A.W.1 & A.W.2 on the point of purchase of ticket. A.W. 1 who is the claimant has stated that brother of the husband of the claimant (Dewar) had purchased ticket and thereafter given to the deceased. However, the brother of the deceased who is A.W. 2 has deposed that he had not purchased the ticket but his brother deceased himself had purchased the ticket. This contradiction coupled with non-production of ticket by the claimant is sufficient to draw an inference that the claimant had failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Moreover, from the impugned order it is evident that during investigation it was found that deceased was suffering with old ailment and it was presumed that he might had committed suicide in such situation. It is further evident that the dead body of the deceased was found lying on the track and none had claimed his dead body and subsequently the dead body was disposed by the Police. In view of the materials brought on record it is evident that the claimant was not entitled to claim compensation which is barred under Section 124A(a)&(b) of the Railways Act, 1989. In view of the facts and circumstances the court is of the opinion that there is no point for interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal stands rejected. Praful (Rakesh Kumar,J.)