1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.1043/2009 APPELLANT:- The Union of India, General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ...V E R S U S... RESPONDENTS:- 1. Smt. Aruna w/o Nathu Lakhade Age 30 years, Occ – Labourer. 2. Mahadhu s/o Nathu Lakhade Age 6 yrs., Under Guardian applicant No.1 Mother. 3. Jalba s/o Bhoju Lakhade, Age 65 Years, Occu – Labourer. 4. Girijabai w/o Jalba Lakhade, Age 60 years, Occu – Labourer. All r/o Kille Wadgaon, Tq. Kalamnuri, Previously Dist. Parbhani, now in Dist. Hingoli. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri P.S. Lambat, Adv. for appellant] [Shri S.K. Sable, Adv. for respondents] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 10.11.2009 2 1. Heard learned Counsel for the rival parties. What is under challenge is the judgment and award dated 22.1.2009 made by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench awarding compensation for the death of deceased Nathu Lakhade. 2. I have gone through the impugned judgment. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant, I find that the defence set up by the Railways that the deceased had gone to answer nature’s call near railway track was not even remotely established. Learned Counsel for the appellant has shown me the statement of Kachru gateman that was recorded immediately after the incident. The statement made by learned Counsel for the appellant that the said statement is in the form of direct evidence is factually incorrect. Reading of the statement to my mind shows that when he reached the spot people who had assembled on the spot were telling each other that while answering nature’s call the incident took place, but that is not the version which can be directly attributed to Kachru. In other words, Kachru is not a witness for the said defence. At any rate, Kachru had never said that he saw deceased Nathu crossing near the railway track. That apart, there is no explanation whatsoever as to how the deceased had a valid railway ticket on his person. The evidence of wife of the deceased is in the nature of direct evidence inasmuch as the wife states that she saw her husband falling down from the running train when she was working in the field adjacent to the railway track. It appears from the facts on record that wife was residing at 3 Nandapur which was her parental house while husband was residing at Bodla and on the fateful day he had come to meet her. There is nothing on record to show as to why the evidence of wife should be disbelieved since nothing has been shown to me as to how her evidence was shattered in any manner whatsoever. The Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and having found that there was a valid ticket on the person of the deceased there was no reason to hold that the Railway Department has even remotely attempted to prove its defence. On the contrary, the claimant tendered direct evidence coupled with railway ticket on the person of the deceased which clearly demolished the defence of the Railways. 3. For the above reasons, therefore, I do not find any merit in the present first appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE ssw