1. Heard, Shri Ram Bilash Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Pratul Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The Instant F.A.F.O. No.336 of 2012 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12.01.2012 passed in OA 0600520; Brijendra Singh and Another Vs. Union of India by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow by means of which the claim petition has been dismissed.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claim application for compensation was filed by the appellants / applicants alleging therein that on 31.08.2006 after purchasing a valid second class ticket from Delhi junction railway station, Deepak @ Ram Singh boarded train No.4724 dn. Kalindri Express for travelling up to Farrukhabad railway station. He accidentally fell down near Tundla junction railway station towards Heera gaon. Consequently, he sustained serious injuries and was brought to Tundla junction from where he was referred to S.N. Hospital, Firozabad through G.R.P., Tundla after first aid given by D.M.O., Tundla. But he died on the way to hospital. G.R.P., Tundla sent the dead body for postmortem and on information family members reached at the hospital. Alongwith claim application the applicants had filed certified photo copies of Police G.D. report, Police Report, Punchnama and postmortem report.
4. The respondent had filed reply to controvert the facts mentioned in the claim application and denied the accident as mentioned by the applicants. The respondent has stated that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the train on the alleged date of accident because no journey ticket was recovered from the possession of deceased Deepak @ Ram Singh on alleged date of incident. He did not accidentally fell down from the train. Therefore the case of the applicants do not come under the purview of Section 123 (C)(2) readwith Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and prayed for dismissal of the claim application.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties four issues were framed. After hearing and considering the entire material placed on record by the parties the findings have been recorded and the claim application has been dismissed. Hence the present appeal has been filed by the appellants / applicants.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased Deepak Kumar was travelling from Delhi to Farrukhabad from train No.4724 Dn. Kalindri Express and he fell down near Tundla railway station. He was taken to the station by Tundla GRP and after first aid, he was referred to S.N. Hospital Firozabad but died on the way to hospital. This was recorded in the inquest report as well as report of the Railways which was filed before learned tribunal but without considering the same the original application has been dismissed in an arbitrary and illegal manner only on a minor discrepancy in the evidence of the witness who is father of the deceased. Therefore, the appellants prayed for setting aside the order and allowing the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that learned tribunal has rightly considered and decided the claim application after considering the evidence of the claimant no.1, who could not prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question. However, he could not dispute that the documents filed before the tribunal have not been considered.
8. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The claim application was filed stating therein that the deceased Deepak @ Ram Singh S/o Brijendra Singh accidentally fell down from train No.4724 dn. near Tundla junction railway station on 31.08.2006, who boarded at Delhi junction with a valid ticket and died due to sustain of severe injuries. Family members had reached the hospital and took the body after postmortem. The claim application was filed annexing therewith a certified copy of the G.D. report of G.R.P., Tunda on 31.08.2006, in which it is mentioned that the deceased Deepak S/o Brijendra Singh was taken to the S.N. Hospital, Firozabad by ambulance for treatment but he died on the way and all the relevant documents have been sent to the hospital. A request was made by the Police Station G.R.P., Tundla to the Chief Medical Superintendent, S.N. Hospital, Firozabad for postmortem. The inquest report annexed with the claim application indicates that the deceased Deepak had died on account of injuries sustained after felling down from the Kalindri Express. A certified copy of the postmortem report was also filed alongwith the claim application.
10. The respondent had though denied the averments made in the claim application in the written statement but it has been admitted in the documentary evidence filed before the tribunal that a passenger had fallen down from the train and died. But all these documents have not been considered by the learned tribunal while deciding the claim application of the appellants / applicants while it has been mentioned that the findings are recorded on the basis of careful perusal of the entire material placed on record by the parties. The claim application has been dismissed merely on the ground that the applicant no.1 has deposed in his affidavit that he was travelling on 30.08.2006 with his deceased son whereas in his cross-examination he had stated that the incident took place on 30.06.2000 while he had specifically stated that he was travelling with his deceased son by train No.4724 Kalindri Express which could be a mistake of writer also. Therefore, it is apparent that the claim application has not been decided after considering the entire material placed on record while it is mentioned in the order that the respondent had filed DRM investigation report as evidence.
11. In view of above, this court is of the view that the learned tribunal has erred in dismissing the original application without considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case and material and evidence available on record. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set-aside.
12. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 12.01.2012 passed in OA 0600520 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow is hereby set-aside.
13. The matter is remitted back to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow to decide the claim application afresh after affording opportunity to the parties in accordance with law. Since the accident is of 31.08.2006, I deem it appropriate to provide that tribunal shall decide the matter expeditiously and make its earnest endeavour to decide the application within three months from the date of receipt of record.
14. Office is directed to remit back the lower court record to the concerned tribunal within three weeks from today.