IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.554 of 2009 SUNITA SINGH, WIFE OF LATE SITARAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF JAITIYA, P.S. – SONPUR, DISTRICT – SARAN (CHHAPRA), BIHAR. ………………. APPLICANT / APPELLANT. Versus UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE GENERAL MANANGER, N.E. RAILWAY, GORAKHPUR. ……………… RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT. ----------- For the Appellant :- Mr. Pravin Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent :- Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate. 04/ 15.09.2010 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 16.07.2009 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench in Claim Case No. OA 00198 of 1999 by which the claim petition of the claimant regarding the death of her husband Sita Ram Singh in alleged untoward incidence as bona fide passenger has been rejected. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the claim was filed along with the document though it has mentioned in paragraph 8 of the impugned order that the claimant has filed a copy of the final form, inquest report, post mortem report, death certificate, the certificate issued by the Railway P.S. Mansi, letter of the Railway P.S., Katihar and the certificate of dependency but the same was not considered that it was not brought in evidence as per Rule 22 2 A(d) of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Amendment Rules 2002. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that though these documents were filed along with the claim petition and even the claimant was examined as a witness and field a document before the claim Tribunal but the same was not considered as it was not brought in evidence and was proved in evidence and hence finally that an opportunity was not given to the appellant to file these documents in evidence in the interest of justice as the case could not have been decided even though the document filed. The learned counsel for the opposite party opposed the prayer and supported the impugned order on the ground that Rule 22 A (d) provides that the document can only be taken into consideration when the same is exhibited. However, taking into consideration the fact that though the document filed but was not considered as the same has not been marked as exhibit and the contention that the same ought to have been marked and same not considered by the Tribunal on pretext that it has not been adduced in evidence whereas the documents are true copy of FIR, charge-sheet, postmortem report, death certificate, 3 certificate of Rail P.P., Letter of A.S.I. Rail P.S. Katihar regarding death of deceased Sitaram Singh who is said to died in duty, Identity Card of claimant issued by the Election Commission which are required to be formally proved. But the same though on record were not considered by the Tribunal in pretext of that not adduced in evidence. However, in proceeding before the Tribunal the strict proof or application of Evidence Act is not sought and apparently ought to have been given to claimant to prove these documents as claim granted under Railways Act are beneficial legislation and require to be deal with for the benefit of the person aggrieved. Hence, in the interest of justice and for substantial justice the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back for consideration with a direction to give an opportunity to the claimant to prove document in evidence and the claimant gets substantial justice. Hence, the miscellaneous appeal is allowed. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)