IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.64 of 2009 PRAMOD KUMAR SHARMA, SON OF LATE KAPILDEO SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-RAM GARHIA, P.S. ARA TOWN, DISTT. BHOJPUR (ARA.) ----- (APPLICANT IN THE TRIBUNAL). Versus THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY HAZIPUR (BIHAR) ----- (RESPONDENT IN TRIBUNAL RESPONDENTS.) ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Anant Kumar, Advocate. For the Union of India : Mr. Shabbir Ahmad, Advocate. 13. 10.12.2010 Heard the parties. The appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment/order dated 29.9.2008 passed in claim application No. OA 000202 of 2004 passed by Hon’ble Member (Technical) Sri H.G. Sharma, RCT, Patna Bench, by which he has dismissed the claim of the appellant. The background of the case is that on 29.4.2004 the appellant gave information to the Officer-in-Charge, G.R.P. Ara, that his father Kapildev Sharma was found run over by a train on the up Railway line. On this, a U.D. case numbered as 10 of 2004 was instituted on the same day. An inquest report was prepared wherein the appellant also signed and as for the cause of death, it was stated that the deceased had been run over by a train. The post mortem examination report was held on the same day where the body was cut in two pieces. On the next day, a final report was submitted stating therein that during investigation, one Binod Kumar, son of Raghunath Prasad was 2 examined who stated that he was a co-passenger of the deceased and while the deceased was standing near the gate on account of excessive crowd, he was pushed from the train due to which he fell down and was run over by the train. The appellant, thereafter, filed the claim case on the ground that the deceased had lost his life in an ‘untoward incident’ and, therefore, the Claimant was liable to be compensated. The said case was filed on 30.12.2004. On going through the records of the case, I find that the Tribunal in paragraph 15 sub para 4 has discussed the final report Exbt. A-6 of the U.D. case wherein it was mentioned that the deceased had fallen from the train but disbelieved it since he held that it was doctored. He was of the opinion that the report of the Investigating Officer about the incident emanated from the memo of Dy. S.M/Arrah Exhibit A2. which did not mehtion such fact. However, on going through the Exbt. A-6, I find that all that the Investigating Officer has mentioned therein is the fact that the U.D. Case had been instituted on the information received from the Arrah Rail Dy. S.M. and he investigated on such information. He concluded that the deceased had died having fallen from the train, on the basis of the statement of one Binod Kumar an eye witness who was examined as A/2. There is no cross-examination on behalf of the Railways that no untoward incident had taken place and the deceased had died on account of self inflicted injury. 3 Since a grave error of record has been committed by the Claims Tribunal, I am of the view that the matter should be remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the matter on going closely through the documents of the case. I may add that non-recovery of the ticket on the person of the deceased has no meaning in the circumstances in which the occurrence had taken place wherein the body was cut into two pieces. In the result, the judgment/order dated 29.9.2008 passed in claim application no. OA 000202 of 2004 passed by Hon’ble Member (Technical), Railway Claim Tribunal, Patna Bench is set aside and the records are remitted back to the Claim Tribunal for a fresh decision within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this record. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)