IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.189 of 2006 Union of India through the General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, U.P. …..….. (Respondent) ….. Appellant. Versus 1. Ram Autar Sah, Son of Dhaneshwar Sah, Resident of village Shirakhpur, P.S. Nainpur, District – Sitamarhi. ………… (Applicant) ……….. Respondent. ----------- 08/ 30.07.2010 Heard both the parties. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 24.02.2006 passed in Claims Tribunal No. O.A. 9900208 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench by which he has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant, the father of the deceased who met with an accident as a bona fide passenger. From perusal of the First Information Report it appears that the deceased while going from Samastipur to Delhi, he was pushed by the crowd in train and fell down from the running train between eastern cabin and platform no. 3 of Muzaffarpur Railway station and died. The case of the respondent is that he filed a claim case under the Railway Tribunal under Section 30 of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 (1) (A) claiming that his son Bishwanath Sah while traveling from Samastipur to Delhi 2 met with an accident at about Muzaffarpur Railway Station by which he fell from the Railway bogie and then he was taken to the hospital and the accident was reported on 13.01.1999. The Assistant Station Master to the G.R.P. on the basis of this report of the police took the victim to Krishna Medical College Hospital where the statement of the deceased was recorded on 17.01.1999 and ultimately he succumbed to injury on 22.01.1999 and thereafter his body was handed over to the applicant for cremation after post mortem report on 23.01.1999. However, the claim of the appellant is that deceased was not bona fide passenger and alleged accident was not untoward accident. However, the Tribunal considered both the issued and held that the deceased Bishwanath Sah was a bona fide passenger going from Samastipur to Delhi and was traveling on 13.01.1999 and further held that he got in the bogie in Vaishali Express and when the train reached near Muzaffarpur Station said Bishwanath Singh fell down in a pull and push of the crowd. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged both the finding by the learned Tribunal. 3 Learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the claimant has not produced the ticket nor the police has recovered ticket nor got ticket from the deceased. It has further been contended that one persons of the Samastipur has been brought to prove that he had got the ticket for the deceased and further that the claimant made statements to support his claim. The father of the deceased has stated that according to the police his son was traveling from Muzaffarpur to New Delhi and thereafter he has stated that he was traveler from Samastipur to Delhi. It has further been contended that it has come that the appellant was at fault while he was sitting near the gate and so it shall be deemed that he has met with the accident due to his own negligence and own fault for which the railway is not liable and has relied upon decision reported in 2004 (22) LCD 986 where it has been held that standing on the door while traveling is a negligence on part of the traveler and does not come under the definition of accident. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, contended that the accident took place while the train reached at or about to reach platform in between the cabin and platform and it has come in evidence that the victim fell due 4 to the hurriedness of the passengers for getting down or entering into the bogie and has also relied upon decision reported in 2008(3) PLJR 711 (Smt. Kaushalaya Devi & Ors. Vs. Union of Indian Thr. General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, U.P.) and the observation made therein that the Railway Administration has been still hell-bent not to pay any compensation to the family of the victim, which by law made by the legislature, is payable to them and further the fact remains that Railway Administration has not been able to make Railway traveling conducive and comfortable for the people of India. They have not been able to provide adequate number of trains for service of the people of India. The trains are overloaded, which over loading has caused the unfortunate death in the instance case, as has come in the form of evidence on the records of the tribunal. Hence taking into consideration the respective submission, the question for consideration whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger. However, having regard to the situation that the victim fell down, this fact has been noticed as apparent from the Assistant Station Master and G.R.P. recorded the statement of the victim who disclosed on 13.01.1999, by 5 Train No. 2552 he was going to Delhi by Vaishali Express Train after getting the ticket and there was immense crowd in the bogie and so he sat near the gate where several travelers were sitting and when the train reached at the Muzaffarpur Station and when the train was about to reach at the Muzaffarpur Station then the passengers who had to got down at the Muzaffarpur Station started pulling and pushing and in the push and pull and the jerk of the train the deceased fell down and got injury. The entire situation as explained by the statement of victim itself who was on death bed disclose about his having got ticket and how he fell down while traveling from the train. Learned counsel for the appellant though have relied upon this statement but in different context and argument showing that he was sitting on the gate and for his negligence he fell down. However the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant reported in 2004 (22) LCD 986 where the passenger was standing on the gate while the door was open and the accident took place near Magarb Railway Station where the train does not stop and hence the situation in the decision reported in 2004 (22) LCD 986 is a different from the facts and circumstances of the present case 6 and hence the ratio decided in the decision reported in 2004 (22) LCD 986 is not applicable to the facts and circumstance of this case. However there is some discrepancies that the father of the deceased stated that his son went from Muzaffarpur to New Delhi whereas this victim went from Samastipur to Delhi but this fact is not relevant to disclaim the appellant from his claim for compensation moreover the father is not an eye witness and stated that whatever he learnt from other. However, the witness has adduced and has come to depose in the case that A.W. 2 Jitendra Jha supported the case of the plaintiff that he went along with the deceased, got the ticket and got him in the train for going to Delhi and the lower court relied upon it and also relied upon the statement of the Bishwanath Sah recorded by the Police which is Ext. A 3 and hence held that he was a traveler with a ticket and I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the order in record to this finding and further the Tribunal held that an accident took place and hence I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the impugned. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)