IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.300 of 2006 BHAGWAN SHARMA, son of Ram Narayan Sharma, resident of vill. Taibapur, P.O. & P.S. Taibapur, Distt. Kishanganj. -----------Appellant Versus THE UNION OF INDIA through the General Manager, North East Frontier Railway, Maligaon, Guwahari. ----------Respondent 06. 21.04.2010. (1) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. (2) It appears that notices were issued in admission matter and lower Court’s record were also called for which has been received. (3) This Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant Bhagwan Sharma against the order dated 26.05.2006 passed by Railway Claim Tribunal in Case No. TA000215/2001 whereby the Tribunal had not granted compensation regarding the luggage of the plaintiff to the extent of Rs.11,500/-. (4) It appears that the appellant filed an application for compensation on 25.05.2000 claiming compensation of Rs.1 lakh. The appellant claimed the aforesaid compensation of Rs.1 lakh on the allegation that on 21.03.2000, he was going from Kishanganj to Thakurganj by Intercity Express Train No.5719 (UP) MG in second class. The said train met an accident at ‘Pothiya Railway Station’. As a result of which the appellant received grievous injury. (5) The respondent filed a contesting written statement alleging that the appellant had no grievous injury. After considering the evidences, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant is 2 entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000/- only. (6) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has not given the compensation regarding the luggage of the appellant amounting to Rs.11,500/-. Accordingly to the learned counsel when the appellant became conscious, he lodged F.I.R. in the G.R.P. but the G.R.P. could not found his articles, H.M.T. wrist watch worth Rs.900/-, cash of Rs.10,000/- and one V.I.P. attachy of Rs.600, total of Rs.11,500/- and then he wrote letter to the Claim Tribunal. The learned counsel further submitted that in the evidence also, the appellant has categorically stated that his articles aforesaid were lost in the train accident and he regained sense, he filed the application but the learned Court below has not considered the same and has not granted compensation regarding aforesaid articles. . (7) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposed the appellant’s contentions and submitted that the details of the articles was never given in the original claim application. The documents were also not attached in the original claim, application. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that just before the filing of this claim application, an application was filed before the G.R.P., Thakurganj which is not reliable. (8) The appellant has been examined in this case as P.W.1. In the cross-examination, he has categorically stated that he had not received any grievous injury. He has also categorically stated that after 24 hours, he regained sense, therefore, the submission on behalf of the 3 appellant that he filed claim petition before G.R.P. on regaining sense falsified because the application before G.R.P. was filed in 24th May, 2000 whereas the accident took place on 21st March, 2000. The claim was filed before the Tribunal on 25.05.2000. Therefore, just before one day of the claim application, an application before the G.R.P. was filed wherein the details of the aforesaid articles was mentioned. In the original claim application, column No.11 of Form 2, no details of alleged articles has been mentioned. In Index also, no documents have been attached. (9) From the above materials available on record, it appears that the claim of the appellant that he received grievous injury stands falsified. As stated above, the appellant himself in his evidence admitted this fact. Likewise the claim of the appellant that he was senseless and when he regained sense, he filed the application in G.R.P. also stands falsified because in his evidence, he himself has admitted that he regained sense after 24 hours. The details of the articles had been mentioned for the first time on 24.05.2000 just one day before the filing of the claim application. In other words, except this statement, there is no other materials. This statement has been made before the G.R.P. after two months of the accident which took place on 21st March, 2000. Therefore, it can be said that the statement given in writing to the G.R.P. is self serving document. (10) The learned Tribunal after considering all these aspects of the matter has rightly not granted the compensation for the so called loss of the articles. After consideration of all the evidences and 4 materials available on record, I also came to the conclusion that the learned Tribunal has rightly not granted the compensation regarding the said articles. (11) In view of above discussion, I find no merit in this Appeal and accordingly this Appeal is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)