IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.573 of 2010 Jogendra Tanti, Son of Late Bangali Tanti, Resident of Village – Murarpur, District – Bhagalpur ………..(Applicant in the Railway Claims Tribunal) ……….. Appellant Versus Union Of India Through The General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata …..(Opposite Party in the Railway Claims Tribunal) …….. Respondent ----------- 5 21.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Anil Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of sole respondent on M.A. No. 573 of 2010 as well as Interlocutory Application i.e. I.A. No. 6052 of 2010. The Interlocutory Application i.e. I.A. No. 6052 of 2010 has been filed with a prayer to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The order by the Railway Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) was passed on 10th February, 2009. However, the appeal against that order was filed on 14.07.2010. After hearing learned counsel for the parties on limitation petition and considering the ground set forth in the limitation petition the same stands allowed. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against an order passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench in Claim Application No. OA 9900285 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was rejected. Short fact of the case is that on 19.11.1999 the appellant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00000/- (Five Lakhs) from the Railway in view of death of his 2 son namely Sunil Tanti @ Chukwa in an untoward incident which occurred on 25.02.1999. As per the claimant, on 25.02.1999, while his son was traveling on Mandar Hill Bhagalpur Passenger Train No. 853 UP from Tekari to Bhagalpur Railway Station accidentally he fell down from the train in between Puraini and Tekari Railway Station. It was alleged that due to heavy rush in the train an accident had occurred and on fall he (appellant’s son) died instantaneously. On the basis of fard-e-beyan a U.D. Case vide U.D. Case No. 2 of 1999 was registered by the Jagdishpur Police on 26.02.1999. Before the ‘Tribunal’ affidavits were filed on behalf of the claimant and one another witness namely Rita Devi. Before the ‘Tribunal’ the claimant-appellant did not get any document exhibited, and as such, before the ‘Tribunal’ two witnesses were examined, one was claimant and another Rita Devi. From the impugned order it is evident that earlier while filing claim petition nothing was stated on the fact as to whether AW- 2 (Rita Devi) was accompanying the deceased on the train. However, in the affidavit which was filed at belated stage a new story was cooked up wherein Rita Devi was introduced to be the witness both on the point of purchase of ticket as well as accident. The learned ‘Tribunal’ on the basis of evidence has doubted the veracity of AW-2. The learned ‘Tribunal’ in absence of any exhibit was not in a position to record a definite finding. However, from the order it appears that the court had perused documents which were produced by the claimant without getting the 3 same exhibited in cursory manner from where the ‘Tribunal’ came to the conclusion that the dead body was not identified at the time of occurrence. The ‘Tribunal’ had also doubted the case of the prosecution after noticing the death certificate of deceased Sunil Tanti @ Chukwa which indicates that death had occurred on 26.02.1999. However, it was case of the claimant that accident had taken place on 25.02.1999 and death had occurred instantaneously. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is error in the order on the point that the deceased was not identified. Learned counsel for the respondent/Railway submits that in the entire memo of appeal the appellant has not even whispered claiming any error in the order and as such learned counsel for the appellant may not be allowed to raise such point at this stage. After going through the material available on record particularly the impugned order the court is satisfied that in absence of any document the learned ‘Tribunal’ has rightly not allowed the claim petition. The order requires no interference. The appeal stands rejected. Praful (Rakesh Kumar, J.)