FAONo.5253 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CM No.25692-CII of 2009 and FAONo.5253 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on 12.7.2010. Smt.Sajjo and others --Applicants/Appellants vs. Union of India, through General Manager,Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi --Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Mahesh Gupta,Advocate,for the applicants/appellants Mr.Amit Kunar,Advocate,for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, This appeal is filed by the claimants against the order of Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, dated 17.2.2009, by which their application for compensation claimed on account of death of Kaka occured on 14/15.12.2002, has been dismissed. The appeal has been filed after a delay of 76 days. Notice in the application was given to which a reply has been filed by the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for condonation of delay as well as on merit. FAONo.5253 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Learned counsel for the applicants/appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in appreciating the evidence on record while dismissing the claim petition, whereas learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the entire evidence on record while passing the impugned order. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that there is no error of misreading of evidence on the part of the Tribunal as suggested by the learned counsel for the applicants/appellants as is evident from the findings recorded :- “A careful scrutiny of the depositions of applicants' witnesses i.e. AW-1 Smt. Sajjo, widow of the deceased and AW-2 Salim Ahmed, an alleged co-passenger with the deceased at the time of alleged incident, reveals that these are not worth reliance on account of material discrepancies and improbabilities. AW-1 Smt. Sajjo, widow of the deceased, has stated in her cross-examination that she had gone to the railway station to see off her husband and at that time, their eldest son Shafi Mohammad was at their residence. It is not at all probable and rather does no appeal to reason that a lady will go to the railway station in the night hours to see off her husband and will come back alone particularly when the young son of the couple aged 24 years is very much present in the house at that time. No reason has been assigned as to why the son of the deceased did not go to the railway station to see his father off. Further, in her examination-in-chief by way of affidavit, AW-1 Smt. Sajjo has stated that her deceased husband had purchased the ticket and entered in the train in her presence and in her cross-examination, she has stated that she was having a platform ticket, which was purchased by her husband only. FAONo.5253 of 2009 (O&M) 3 However, AW-2, Salim Ahmed, the alleged eye witness to the purchase of ticket by the deceased and a co-passenger with the deceased on the date of incident, has stated in his cross-examination that the deceased Kaka was alone while purchasing the ticket on that day. Whereas in his examination- in-chief by way of affidavit, he has stated that when he and Kaka were sitting in the above said train, then suddenly the driver of the train checked the brakes in fast manner and suddenly stopped the train and due to the above said negligence of the driver of the train, Kaka received injuries and fell down in his presence. However, in his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had not witnessed the deceased boarding the train. Then on his own violation, he has stated that the deceased was already seated in the last compartment of the train in which he had boarded and he saw that the deceased was sitting at the corner seat. Again, it needs to be mentioned here that it is not at all probable that a person who is sitting on a seat in the coach of a train shall fell out from it if the train gives a jerk or suddenly applies brake. Here, the deposition of RW-1 i.e. guard of the train is relevant wherein he has stated that between railway station Chandigarh to Dappar, the driver neither checked the brakes of the train in question nor stopped the train suddenly at or near the alleged gate where the deceased is alleged to have fallen down. The conduct of this witness also does no inspire confidence and renders his deposition nor worth reliance. Though this witness, as per his deposition, was neither well acquainted nor related to the deceased or his family and had only once met the deceased before the incident on the occasion of Jumma at the time of paying Namaz and he has taken trouble to come forward to depose before this Tribunal being a good Samaritan, then if at all, the deceased had fallen down from the train in his presence, then why he did not raise hue and cry and take any step to get the FAONo.5253 of 2009 (O&M) 4 train stopped immediately after the incident to report the matter to the guard or the driver of the train or the police authorities. In fact, this witness, who is a resident of the same vicinity in which the deceased was residing appears to have been a procured one. Further, had any such alleged incident of fall from the train occurred at the alleged place i.e. Gate No.125/125-C on the alleged date and time, then it is not possible that the co-passengers would not have raised hue and cry to stop the train and the incident could not have come to the notice of the Gateman who had been there on duty at the relevant time. As discussed above, the depositions of AW-1 and AW-2 are not worth-reliance on account of material contradictions and improbabilities. In the case in hand, as such, neither the factum of the deceased's being a passenger of the alleged train much less a bonafide passenger nor the factum of his death in any untoward incident stands proved from the evidence as adduced by the applicants on record. On the other hand, it appears to be a case of hit by some train while the deceased may be wandering near the tracks as he was a resident of the area very nearer to the place of occurrence which fact also stands corroborated from the postmortem report wherein it is mentioned that “As PPP (per police papers). On the night of 14/15.12.2002, the deceased is alleged to have been found unconscious on the railway track near gate No. 125 b/w the P.S. Chd. and Ghaggar. He was xxx xxx to GMCH, Sector 32 referred to PGI, Chd. Mode of injury unknown” and the deceased had suffered head injury. All these issues, as such, stand decided accordingly against the applicants and in favour of the respondent-railway”. Since there is no merit in the appeal as no argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the applicants/appellant to find fault with FAONo.5253 of 2009 (O&M) 5 the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal, I do not find any reason even to condone the delay. Hence, the application filed for condonation of delay as well as the main appeal are hereby dismissed, but without any order as to costs. 12.7.2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge