IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.78 of 2011 Bifiya Devi W/O Late Yogi Rai, resident of Village- Jurawanapur, Karari, P.S. Raghopur, District-Vaiashali ------------- Appellant Versus The Union of India through its General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata ------------------ Respondent. ----------- 06 06-07-2011 Heard Sri Anant Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of sole Respondent. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,1987 ( hereinafter referred to as “ the Railway Act”) against an order dated 23.4.2010 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna ( hereinafter referred to as “ the Tribunal”) in O.A. No.00080 of 2001. By the said order, the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim of the appellant for compensation of amount of Rs. 4 Lacs due to untoward incident in which husband of the appellant died due to injuries sustained in fall from a train. Short fact of the case is that a claim petition was filed by the appellant disclosing therein that on 25.1.2001, while her husband was going from Khushrupur to Rajendra Nagar through train no.555-UP (Mokama- Danapur Shuttle) after purchasing railway ticket along with others at Rajendra Nagar Railway Station, due to rush and sudden jerk of the train, he fell down from the train and received serious injuries. Subsequently, the injured was carried to Patna Medical College Hospital, Patna and while he was under treatment, on 31.3.2001 the husband of the appellant succumbed to his injuries. Immediately thereafter fardbeyan of 2 son of the deceased was got recorded by the police and an U.D. Case was registered in the G.R.P.Patna. After the death, inquest report was prepared on the same day and on the dead body of the deceased autopsy was held on 01.02.2001. In the claim case, the sole Respondent appeared and filed written statement taking plea that it was not a case of untoward incident in terms of Section 123 of the Railway Act. It was also pleaded that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger since he was not having any valid railway ticket. Before the Tribunal, the claimant besides examining three witnesses had also brought on record number of documents in support of the claim. The statements of three witnesses on affidavit were also filed before the Tribunal. Fardbeyan( Ext.A4) of Bhullu Rai ,son of deceased (A.W.2), Inquest Report ( Ext.A5), Postmortem Examination Report (Ext.A6), F.I.R. ( Ext.A7), Final Report ( Ext.A8), and some other documents were got exhibited by the claimant. The learned tribunal after hearing the parties had framed number of issues, which are as follows: (i) Whether, the claim was maintainable? (ii) Whether, the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train no.555 UP (Mokama- Danapur Shuttle) on 25.01.2001? (iii) Whether, the claim petition is covered under the provision of Section-123 of the Railway Tribunal Act, 1987? (iv) Whether, the claimant/defendant was entitled to get compensation amount and if yes, up to what extent. The learned Tribunal after discussing the evidences brought on 3 record has come to the conclusion that the claimant completely failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger nor she could prove the fact relating to death in the said occurrence. Accordingly, the Tribunal rejected the claim petition. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the present appeal has been preferred. Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset has argued that the Tribunal without properly appreciating the evidence has passed the order in a mechanical manner only on the basis of presumption, whereas fact remains that on record, there were sufficient evidence to establish that at the time of occurrence, the deceased was a bona fide railway passenger and was travelling with a valid ticket. It has further been argued that there were materials on record to establish that accident had taken place, as asserted in the claim petition. In support of his argument, he has relied upon the final report submitted by the police i.e. Ext.A8, Postmortem Report (Ext.A6) and Inquest Report (Ext.5). On the aforesaid grounds; it has been argued that the order impugned is liable to be set aside and Respondent can be directed to pay compensation amount of Rs.4 Lacs in view of provision of Railway Claims Tribunal Act. Sri Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant. At the very outset, he has argued that from the entire record, it is evident that from the claimant side, not a chit of paper was brought on record to establish that the deceased was travelling with a valid ticket. The claimant had failed to produce railway ticket and since before the Tribunal, railway ticket was not produced, it can be said that the deceased was a ticketless traveller and 4 not a bona fide passenger and since he was not a bona fide passenger, the learned tribunal has rightly not given compensation to the claimant and rejected the claim petition. He has further argued that the alleged accident had taken place on 25.1.2001, whereas fardbeyan of son of deceased was recorded on 31.01.2001, only after the death of the husband of the claimant and, as such, it has been agreed that the claimant had completely failed to establish that the injury received by the deceased was caused in a railway accident. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. It is true that fardbeyan was recorded on 31.1.2001, after the death of the husband of the claimant, but fact remains that the inquest report (Ext.A5) was prepared on the same day. I have perused the inquest report, which makes it clear that the injury found on the person of the deceased was indicative of injury caused in a rail accident. This has further been corroborated in the postmortem report i.e. Ext.A6 and even in the final report (Ext.A8). The investigating agency after investigation had come to the conclusion that the deceased had sustained injury in a railway accident. After going through the aforesaid Exts, there is no ambiguity on the point that the deceased had sustained injury in a railway accident. So far the plea taken by the Respondent that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidences, which were brought on record by the claimant. A.W.3 i.e. Amar Nath Rai has made specific deposition that all through he was along with the deceased. At Khushrupur Railway Station both of them had purchased ticket and were travelling with valid tickets. In his presence, 5 accident had taken place. Immediately thereafter, he carried the injured to Patna Medical College Hospital. In such an accident, it was not expected that A.W.3 instead of carrying him for immediate medical aid would have started searching for the ticket from the person of the injured. The evidence of A.W.3 is specific on the point that the deceased was having a valid ticket. The argument advanced by Sri Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Respondent that in view of non- production of railway ticket before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has rightly accepted that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it was duty on the part of the Respondent/ Railway to disprove the claim that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, whereas the claimant had proved the same. He has referred to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court, reported in 2008 (3) PLJR 711 (Smt. Kaushalya Devi & Ors Vs. Union of India through General Manager). Learned counsel for the appellant on this point has also relied upon a single Bench Judgment of this Court, reported in 2008 (1) PLJR 627 ( Smt. Akhtari Begam Vs. Union of India). In the present case since there was oral evidence on record, particularly evidence of A.W.3, in support of the appellant that the deceased had purchased ticket and traveling with a valid ticket, onus was on the Respondent/ Railway to disprove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. After going through the evidence of A.W.3, it is evident that in his cross- examination nothing could be extracted from the mouth of A.W.3 to create any doubt on the veracity of his evidence nor any other material was brought on record by the Respondent/ Railway to disprove the case of the claimant. 6 In view of the facts and materials on record, the Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence and incorrectly rejected the claim petition. Accordingly, the order dated 23.04.2010 is hereby set aside. The Respondent is directed to make payment of compensation amount of Rs.4 Lacs, as it was claimed by the claimant within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the appellant shall be entitled to get simple interest @ 6 % per annum on compensation amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. The appeal stands allowed. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J. )