FAO No.14 of 2009 -1 - IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.14 of 2009 Date of decision : 23.3.2009 Urmila ..Appellant. Vs. Union of India and another ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Dheeraj Bali, Advocate for the appellant. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 27.9.2007 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh whereby claim set up by the appellants on account of death of Som Dutt has been rejected. Brief facts of the case as pleaded by the claimants are that on 8.7.2000, deceased Som Dutt left his home at about 6.50 A.M. to board 1057 Dadar Express Train. As the train stopped on platform No.2 of Railway Station Gharaunda, the deceased along with Karan Singh Rana son of Tikka Singh Rana, resident of Gharaunda boarded the train for journey to Karnal. There was a great rush in the train. As the deceased was making his way in the corridor of the train he was pushed from the train as a result of which, he fell down from the running train and his body was crushed into pieces. His companion Karan Singh Rana and other passengers raised hue FAO No.14 of 2009 -2 - and cry and the train came to a halt. It is further claimed that deceased (Som Dutt) was having Monthly Season Ticket (railway pass) from Karnal to Kohand and identity Card No.499645 which was valid upto 29.7.2000. The applicants claimed themselves to be widow and mother of the deceased. The claim petition was contested by the respondent in which it was averred that neither any incident occurred causing death of Som Dutt within the meaning of Section 123 read with Section 124 (A) of Railways Act, 1989 nor he was a bonafide passenger, therefore, the claimants were not entitled to any compensation. They also denied that the claimants are the dependents of the deceased as there was no relationship of the claimants with the deceased. The claimants did not file any replication and on the basis of rival contentions of the parties, following issues were framed: (i)Whether no untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 (c) took place? (ii)Whether deceased was a bonafide passenger? (iii)Whether applicants are the sole dependents of the deceased? (iv)Whether deceased died as a result of his own criminal act and respondent is entitled for benefit of proviso to Section 124 A of the Railway Act? (v)To what amount of compensation the applicants are entitled? (vi)Relief. The learned Tribunal while deciding issues No.1 to 4 together, came to a conclusion that the story put forward by the respondents that the deceased (Som Dutt) was travelling in the train and was pushed out of the FAO No.14 of 2009 -3 - train and got killed, is unbelievable because once the deceased had boarded the train and he was making his way in the corridor of the compartment meaning thereby he was inside the compartment and not on the door then he could not have fallen down from the running train. Secondly, if such incident had occurred the Station Authorities must have taken cognizance thereof and as usual, Station authorities might have issued memo to the concerned GRP authorities, who in turn, might have investigated the case and prepared inquest report after due enquiry but no such report has been filed by the claimants except the post mortem report. It was also found that post mortem report does not contain the signatures of the doctor, who is said to have performed the post mortem on the dead body of Som Dutt. It was also observed by the Tribunal that identity card No.499645 was never issued by the Railway Authorities, Gharaunda or Karnal. It was further observed that until and unless identity card No.499645 is disclosed it cannot be presumed that any such Monthly Season Ticket was issued by the Railway Authorities to the deceased. It was also found that the deceased was having the MST between Karnal and Kohand, which is about 6 Kms. towards Panipat and not towards Karnal. Thus, keeping in view the entire evidence recorded by the Tribunal, it was found that neither the accident has been proved nor the fact that the deceased was travelling by the train. While deciding issue No.3, the Tribunal has also observed that applicant No.1 could not prove on record that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased. Similarly, applicant No.2 has also failed to prove that she was dependent upon the deceased. In view of the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, I do not FAO No.14 of 2009 -4 - find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. No costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 23.3.2009 JUDGE Meenu