-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO.2497 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.2497 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.2497 OF 2007 Mohammed Salim Safi Mohammed Shaikh & Ors. ...Appellants vs. Union of India represented by General Manager,Western Railway ...Respondent Mr.T.J.Mendon for the Appellants Mr.A.H.Patil for the Respondent CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2008 : FEBRUARY 18, 2008 : FEBRUARY 18, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocates for the parties. The original applicants in a claim petition filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal under section 124-A of the Railways Act,1989 have taken an exception to the judgment and Order dated 20th April 2005 passed by the Tribunal by which their claim petition has been rejected. 2. The claim petition has been rejected on the ground that the Appellants could not establish their relationship with the deceased who was the victim of an untoward incident. 3. The submission of the learned Advocate for the Appellants is that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the relationship with the deceased as pleaded by the Appellants. He invited my attention to the evidence of the first Appellant -2- and in particular paragraph 12 thereof. He pointed out that the first Appellant specifically relied upon the ration card issued to him at his native place in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He submitted that what was produced before the Railway Claims Tribunal was the ration card issued in Mumbai standing in the name of the brother of the deceased and though reliance was placed on the ration card issued at the native place in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the same could not be produced at the time of trial before the tribunal. He, therefore, submitted that an order of remand may be passed for giving an opportunity to the Appellants to produce and to prove the said ration card issued in the State of Uttar Pradesh . He has supplied a xerox copy of the said ration card to the Advocate for the respondent and has produced the original for inspection of this court. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. Perusal of the examination in chief of the first Appellant shows that except for a xerox copy of the ration card issued in Mumbai, no other documentary evidence was produced for establishing the relationship with the deceased. 5. It will be necessary to refer to his cross examination which read thus : . I cannot read my affidavit. (The witness is not -3- replying as to whether the contents of the affidavit was read to him). I was not present with the deceased when the incident took place but i was in my village. I came to know of the facts from my son Maqsood alam who was travelling with the deceased at the relevant time. It is correct that I do not know the facts personally, as I have stated in my affidavit." 6. The second witness examined by the Appellants has not deposed anything about the relationship of the Appellants with the deceased. 7. In the impugned Judgment and Order the learned Member of the tribunal found that the ration card produced before the tribunal was issued in the name of one Iqbal Shaikh and the deceased was shown as the son of the said Iqbal Shaikh. The learned Member of the Tribunal noted that in the first paragraph of the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of the first Appellant, he had not disclosed the address of his native place in Uttar Pradesh. The tribunal found that in the ration card which was produced before it, even the third Appellant was shown as the son of the said Iqbal Shaikh and the ration card does not show that the first and second Appellants were the parents of the deceased. 8. I have perused the original ration card which is for the -4- first time produced in the Appeal. Firstly, it must stated that the Appellants have not disclosed the address of their native place in Uttar Pradesh either in the claim petition or at the time of recording of evidence. There is a bald statement of the first Appellant that a ration card has been issued in his name at his native place. Even in the affidavit in lieu of evidence, the name of the village or native place has not mentioned by the first Appellant. The ration card which is now produced in the court does not bear any rubber stamp or seal or any signature of the Authority issuing the ration card. The contention of the learned Advocate for the Appellants is that the rubber stamp has been wiped out as the ration card has become old. It is not possible to accept the said contention. The ration card now produced appears to be a got up document. 9. Considering the aforesaid aspects, no case is made out for passing an order of remand. The tribunal was right in holding that the Appellants have not established their relationship with the deceased and consequently the fact that the Appellants were the dependants within the meaning of the said Act of 1989. No case is made out for interference. Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE