IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.672 of 2008 1. SHIV SHANKAR PRASAD 2. DHARMENDRA KUMAR BOTH SONS OF LATE RATAN LAL SAH, R/O VILLAGE GOVINDPUR, P.S. FATUHA, DISTRICT PATNA .. APPELLANTS Versus THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR, BIHAR .. RESPONDENT **** For the appellants .. M/S Sudhir Kr., Anand Kr. & Rajeev Kr., Advs. For the respondent .. M/S Naresh Dikshit & Kunal Tiwary, Advs. **** /8/ 4 August 2010 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 27.08.2008, passed by Sri H.G. Sharma, Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Junction, by which he has rejected the claim of the claimants that their father has not committed suicide. 3. The case of the appellants is that their father was going from Fatuha to Patna Junction by 5453 Up Rajgir Passenger train and there was excessive crowd and due to that he was pushed down from the train as he was standing 2 at the gate. Further, case is that he was traveling with a ticket which lost in accident. However, the claimants in support of their claim proved Exhibits A series, the affidavits by Shiv Shankaer Prasad and Satya Narain Singh, first information report, copy of the memo, inquest report, post mortem report, copy of the receipt of the dead body, the identity of Shiv Shankar Prasad and Satya Narain. During the proceedings four issues were framed, i.e., (i) whether the claim of the applicant is valid, (ii) whether the deceased died in rail accident which comes under proviso (a) to (e) of Section 124A of the Railway Act, 1989, (iii) whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger and (iv) whether the claimants are entitled for the relief. While considering issues no. (ii) and (iii) the learned Tribunal held that the applicants could not prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and issues no. (i) and (iv) have also been decided against the applicants. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, contended that A.W. 2 has stated that deceased fell down from the train and the inquest report suggests that there was only a dhoti and ganji on his body and, hence, contends that the ticket might have been lost and merely the 3 ticket has been lost and not recovered from his pocket, it will not decide that the deceased not being the bonafide passenger. 5. However, two witnesses examined, i.e., A.W. 1, the son of the deceased, who is the claimant. He is not the eye witness to the occurrence though he is speaking that he came on 23.09.2004 to Patna Junction and identified his father. However, the Tribunal considered and found that the deceased was not identified till post mortem examination and even the dead body was sent for post mortem examination and even the post mortem report also mentions that the dead body is unclaimed and it is post mortem of unknown person. However, the Tribunal took into consideration the inquest report which mentions that there was dhoti and ganji on the person of the deceased and the report was recorded on information of some one that a dead body is laying on the railway track. However, the accident took place not on a platform of a railway station, but, in between Patna Junction and Fatuha Railway Station and nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the deceased was traveling in the train with a valid ticket though A.W. 2 has stated about the traveling of the deceased and 4 deceased fell down, but, deceased found in gamcha dhoti and no ticket found with him. Moreover, the Tribunal doubted the bonafide evidence of A.W. 2 when he has stated that the deceased was not known to him from earlier and while he was on the train he learnt that some one has fallen and when he returned on the next day he learnt that the person who has fell down is the deceased, Ratan Lal Sah. However, the occurrence took place on 22.09.2004 and the dead body was found near over bridge and deceased was not identified till 23.09.2004, but, the identity of the deceased was not disclosed till post mortem examination on 24.09.2004, hence, the assertion of A.W. 2 found to be not trustworthy. Hence, evidence of A.W. 2 not improve confidence to hold the deceased having died as passenger in an untoward incidence. 6. Hence, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in this appeal. 7. With these observations and directions, this application is dismissed. Cp:2/S.A. ( Gopal Prasad, J. )