IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA M.A. No.208 of 2009 GITA DEVI, W/O LATE KABINDRA PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE DAHIBHATTA, P.O. USMANCHAK, P.S. MASAURHI, DISTRICT PATNA .. APPLICANT-APPELLANT Versus THE UNION OF INDIA THORUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR .. RESPONDENT **** For the appellant .. Mr. Krishna Mohan Kurari, Adv. For the respondent .. Mr. Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, Adv. **** /6/ 1 September 2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 27.01.2009, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in Claim Application No. 0A000169 by which the claim of the claimants has been dismissed. 3. The claimant is the widow of the deceased. The case of the claimant is that her husband, Kabindra Paswan, was travelling on a valid ticket as bonafide passenger from Masaurhi to Patna Junction fell while boarding train at Masaurhi Railway Station from train no. 592 Dn (Gaya Patna Passenger, also known as 2PG EMUI) 2 and succumbed to injury due to untoward accident. 4. The respondent, Railway, filed written statement refuting the allegation to contest the claim. However, after considering the respective pleading, four issues were framed, i.e., (i) whether claim application is maintainable, (ii) whether deceased died out of untoward incidence, (iii) whether deceased was bonafide passenger and (iv) whether dependant is entitled to compensation. On the issues the claimant examined three witnesses A.W. 1 Gita Devi, A.W. 2, Dharam Das Paswan and A.W. 3 Raj Kumar Paswan, no evidence either oral or documentary adduced by the respondent. 5. On considering the evidence the Tribunal rejected the claim on the ground that appellant’s claim supported by A.Ws. 2 and 3 do not stand validated that no documentary evidence have been adduced on behalf of the appellant though Tribunal admitted some documents filed along with claim application which is on record and has been duly challenged by the respondents, hence, according to Rule 22 (d) of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989, those document will not form the part of the record unless they are tendered in evidence, further, 3 considering the evidence on minor contradiction of no mention by witness, the claim petition has been rejected. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, contends that the documents were filed along with the claim petition and appellant was under impression that it will be duly measured as public document in evidence as the three documents are the first information report, inquest report and the first information report of the Railway Police Station, Jehanabad, which is on record. The document fairly indicates that the documents were duly attested by the Advocate on record on 25.11.2004, itself, however, those documents were not marked as evidence even though filed at the out set of the filing before the Claim Tribunal. It is submitted that Rule 30 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989, mentions that the Tribunal shall decide every application as expeditiously as possible on documents, affidavits and, hence, was under impression that it will be considered and it appears that due to misconception the documents could not be marked and proved though it is still on record and duly attested by the Advocate on 25.11.2004, at the time of filing the petition before the Tribunal. The claimant has stated in her evidence 4 that the police took the dead body of her husband in his custody and then informed her devar on the basis of which case was lodged. The said Raj Kumar Paswan is devar of claimant, who is the first informant. The fardbeyan has not been marked as evidence and this document has not been considered by the Tribunal on the ground that it has not been adduced in evidence though lying on the record duly certified by the Advocate. However, the claimant was not an eye witness to the occurrence and was not even at the place of occurrence at the time of accident whereas Raj Kumar Paswan gave in his evidence that he was informed by the police about the accident. A.Ws. 2 and 3 have deposed that the deceased was travelling on the train after purchasing the ticket. 7. Hence, having regard to the fact that since the documents, which is on record, has not been duly measured and considered and the impugned order, which was passed without marking the documents in evidence and considering, hence, in the interest of justice the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, to give opportunity to claim to prove the documents and the 5 Tribunal, after considering the documents, shall pass final order in accordance with law. 8. However, since the occurrence is of the year 2004, the Tribunal is directed to dispose off the matter expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order. 9. With these observations and directions, this application is disposed off. Cp:2/S.A. ( Gopal Prasad, J. )