IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.222 of 2009 BINOD CHAUDHARY, SON OF LATE CHHAKAURI CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PASAHI, P.S.-JANIPUR, DISTRICT-PATNA. ………………….. PETITIONER Versus THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY HAZIPUR (BIHAR). ……… RESPONDENT IN TRIBUNAL ………………….. RESPONDENT ----------- 2 4/5/2009 Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. By the impugned judgment the Railway Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim of the appellant pertaining to the alleged death of one Chhakori Choudhary on 19.6.2004 on account of an alleged untoward incident. The Tribunal in the light of the evidence of both oral and documentary has recorded a finding that the dead body of the deceased Chhakori Choudhary was found to be cut into two equal pieces from the mid rib level and as such in the normal circumstances it could not have been held to be an incident of a person allegedly fallen from a compartment of a running train. The tribunal in this regard has also found that the solitary eye witness, namely, Manoj Kumar Choudhary who is said to be accompanying with the deceased on the fateful day in the compartment was also not examined by the appellant so as to throw light on the real version of the alleged accident. In the ultimate analysis the tribunal having looked into the materials on record has altogether rejected the claim for compensation for the death of Chhakori Chaudhary. . Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned Senior counsel 2 appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the provisions of sections 124, 124 A and 125 of the Railway Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is a beneficial piece of legislation and therefore if there was something to show that the deceased was found to be dead in course of traveling in a train, the first and natural inference must be that it was on account of an untoward incident so as to make the railways liable for payment of compensation. Such bald submissions of the Mr. Verma, however, does not find support from the statutory provisions of section 124 A of the Act which restricts the liabilities for payment of compensation for the occurrence only in a given circumstance which may not fall within the meaning of suicide, self inflicted injury, his own criminal act or an act in the state of intoxication. In the present case both the inquest report and the postmortem report would go to show that there was no injury on the person of the deceased, save and except, the body was completely divided into two equal parts at the end of abdomen. A person who would fall down from the running train on account of jerk or some unforeseen reason, in the ordinary course will have to suffer some bodily injury, but in the present case there is none. Mr. Verma, however, has pointed out that there is some inconsistency in the postmortem report and the inquest report, inasmuch as in the inquest report the right hand of the deceased also was found to be chopped off which has not been mentioned in the postmortem report. 3 This Court would find that as a matter of fact there is no inconsistency between the postmortem report and the inquest report to the extent that even the police officer has found the dead body to be cut into two pieces and has found no other injury on any other portion of the body of the deceased. Assuming that chopped off hand as found by the police was not accorded in the postmortem report, the same would still not make out a case of the appellant for payment of compensation by the Railways because even when a person falling from the compartment of the running train will have to go inside the railway track so as to be subjected for cutting of his body into two parts at the mid rib level and that would put the case into the realm of impossibility. Thus, in the given circumstance the medico legal evidence itself would rule out the case of the appellant that the deceased Chhakori Choudhary had met an accident which can be held on untoward incident as defined and explained under the Act. The appellant has also claimed in his oral evidence that the only person who had the first hand knowledge of the entire incident was nonelse but one Manoj who was grand son (Nati) of the deceased allegedly traveling with him in the same compartment of the train. The said fact also to some extent get support from the information given to the police by Manoj himself, but then though Manoj is said to have reached first at the place where the dead body of Chhakori Choudhary was found, he in his fardbeyan to the police on 19.6.2004 at about 1 P.M. did not 4 claim to have actually accompanying his grand father in the train. The said Manoj, however, has not been examined by the appellant and those who have been examined as witnesses by the appellant had not seen the occurrence. In that view of the matter, the ocular evidence also could have hardly thrown any light on the manner of incident as claimed by the appellant. This Court also does not find any infirmity in the discussion of the tribunal as with regard to lack of oral evidence in proving the untoward incident leading to death of Chhakori Choudhary. The findings recorded as with regard to Chhakori Choudhary being not a bonafide passenger on account of non production of railway ticket nor its being found near the railway track from where the dead body was recovered by itself could not be a circumstance to deny the claim of untoward incident, but then the appellant himself had been onus on him by producing only one witness who is said to be fellow passenger, namely, A.W.2 who for the first time is said to have seen Chhakori Choudhary in the queue while allegedly he was purchasing the railway ticket and thereafter had claimed to have identified the dead body of Chhakori Choudhary as stated by him in course of his examination before the tribunal. The tribunal therefore has meticulously dealt with the cross examination of the said A.W.2 and has found that there was a lot of inconsistency not only with regard to place where the incident had taken place but also in the statement of the witness stating that he had never seen Chhakori Choudhary earlier 5 except in queue while purchasing railway ticket and as such the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal that it was impossible for him to remember as to whom he had identified in the queue while purchasing the ticket. This Court does not find any perversity in the discussion of the tribunal in rejecting oral statement of A.W.2. The two other person who could have throw light on the death/accident/untoward incident of the deceased Chhakori Choudhary are Koulesh Prasad Yadavl and Bhola Paswan, who are said to be the inquest witness and also resident of the same village of the deceased Chhakori Choudhary. The appellant, however, had also not examined either of the two persons and as such the whole incident remained surrounded in mystery. Considering the aforementioned aspect, this Court does not find any infirmity in the judgment of the tribunal and accordingly this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)