IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.243 of 2008 1. MINA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE DINESH PRASAD CHOUDHARY. 2. PRAVENDHU KUMAR 'PANKAJ' SON OF LATE DINESH PRASAD CHOUDHARY. 3. HARIOM CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE DINESH PRASAD CHOUDHARY. 4. PRIYANKA KUMARI, DAUGHTEROF LATE DINESH PRASAD CHOUDHARY. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-RAMPUR JALALPUR, P.O. & P.S.-DALSINGHSARAI, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. ................ APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY, KOLKATA. ............. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ----------- 4 27.4.2009 Heard counsel for the appellant. In the opinion of this Court, when the Railway Claim Tribunal having analyzed each and every evidence has recorded a clear and categorical findings in paragraph no.25 to the following effect; “25. Critical appraisal of the materials and evidences adduced before the Tribunal, the testimony on oath of AW-1, AW-2 and AW- 3, the documents filed by the applicant and, the averments made in the claim application, the following circumstances emerge; (1) Inquest Report and Postmortem Report, which have been prepared on the date of the incident itself, and immediately after the occurrence, strongly suggest that it was case of run over by the train in question and not of accidental falling from the running 2 train as is sought to be made out. (2) No recovery of either the printed ticket or the Excess Fare Ticket was made from the dead body of the deceased though items of various kinds and descriptions and in large number including cash of Rs. 800/- have been faithfully recorded as having been found at the time of inquest. (3) One Kishori Sao, the only eye- witness in the case who claims to be present when the alleged untoward incident happened and when the Inquest Report was prepared is not named as one of the witnesses who have signed the inquest report. (4) His name does not figure even as one of the witnesses said to have been examined by Inspector GRP whose investigation report, after about 5 months of the incident, is purporting to support the version of the applicant. (5) Inquest and Postmortem have been done on unidentified dead body, and the dead body remained unidentified till the end and had to be disposed off as such. (6) The link between the applicant and the dead body of “unidentified Hindu male” found at the time of Inquest and Postmortem and the nexus between the deceased and the alleged untoward incident, is sought to be established by examining Kishori Sao, a coolie at 3 Bakhtiarpurr Station (AW-2) and Hari Oam Chowdhary claiming to be son of the deceased, (AW-3) as witnesses. Their testimony does not inspire confidence for reasons detailed in the foregoing paras and hence are not worthy of credence. (7) No Death Certificate has been filed by the applicant in support of her claim that her husband Dinesh Prasad Chowdhary has indeed died. (8) It appears strange that a printed card ticket as well as Excess Fare Ticket were issued from the originating station from the same booking window. No person in the ordinary course of business would like to perform two separate transactions where only one would do. In this case either a printed card ticket or an excess fare ticket far the entire leg from originating station to destination station would have very well served the purpose. Instead, two separate tickets have been issued by the booking clerk who is expected to be under a tremendous pressure to dispense tickets when catering to a large queue at counter at train timings and in no case, would ordinarily like to unnecessarily duplicate his work.” the only argument of the learned counsel for the appellant against the impugned judgment confined to the event that one of the 4 important piece of evidence namely the Inspector’s Report was not considered, has to be only noticed for its being rejected. The court below has in fact given all possible considerations to each and every document including the alleged report of the Inspector because Sub-para 4 of para 25 talks of consideration of such report. That being so, this Court would find no flaw in the impugned judgment and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)