1. Sri Bhuvenesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved of award dated 16.12.2011 passed by learned Technical Member, Railway Claims Tribunal Bench at Ghaziabad in Claim Application No. OA/II/130/08/, Bijnor whereby learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim put forth by the claimants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in passing impugned award and fact of the matter is that AW-2/1 Radheshyam had proved the accident beyond reasonable doubt in asmuch as he was a co-passenger with the deceased. Reading cross examination of Radheshyam, it is submitted that Radheshyam proved factum of accident taking place. Radheshyam submitted that Mahendra @ Raju was known to him. He was also engaged in the work of preparation of nameplates alongwith him. He use to travel from Achalda to Etawah whereas Mahendra use to travel to Bharthna. It is also mentioned in the cross examination that train Shikohabad passenger had reached Achalda at about 9:30 pm and accident took place between 9:45 to 10:00 pm when Mahendra was boarding the train and it started all of sudden, as a result of which Mahendra had fallen down between the platform and the railway track. Reading such evidence, it is submitted that AW-2 Radheshyam being eye witness of the accident, there was no occasion for the Claims Tribunal to have doubted the case of the claimants and therefore Tribunal should have awarded adequate compensation as provided under the scheme instead of dismissing the claim petition.
It is further submitted that as per report of GRP, they had received intimation at about 8:00 am from one porter Sri Kamlesh Babu on 19.12.2007 that one unknown body was lying at Achalda uploop line. Matter was taken into investigation and report was lodged. Reading this report, it is submitted that even report of the GRP official pointed out that death had taken place on account of accident which took place on the previous night of 18.12.2007.
Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the Union of India submits that this is a case of false implication in asmuch as evidence on record is contrary to the pleadings and even the witness examined by the claimant could not prove the case in favour of the claimants.
After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the record, fact of the matter is that claimants witness Sri Radheshyam in his cross examination has admitted that he did not discontinue his journey. He completed his journey up to Etawah then he had given intimation to police of Etawah Railway Station. There is no document on record to show that any such intimation was given by Radheshyam to the police authority of Etawah Railway Station. Thereafter Radheshyam deposed that on 19th December, he had reached the spot of the accident at about 8:00 am and he found that police was also there and had taken possession of the dead body. He submits that he had identified the body of the deceased but then admitted that he was not present at the time of the police proceedings. He further admitted that he has no knowledge as to when police proceedings were drawn. He further admitted that police had not taken his statement nor any document was signed by him.
When evidence of this star witness of the claimants is examined in totality, his whole conduct is unnatural and doubtful. It is not case of Radheshyam that he tried to pull the chain to stop the train. Conduct of Radheshyam who admitted that deceased was working with him for last 1-2 months prior to accident reveals that if this would have been correct then he would have pulled the chain to stop the train and he would have got down from the train to extend medical aid to the injured. Secondly, as per version of Radheshyam accident took place when deceased was trying to board the train, whereas, as per GRP report, dead body was found lying on uploop line of Achalda railway station. Thirdly, if accident had taken place at Achalda railway station then it would have been brought to the notice of the authorities of the railway station immediately but there is no such evidence on record. Contention of Radheshyam that he had returned back to the site of the incident at 8:00 am on the next morning also points out towards his unnatural conduct in asmuch as neither he is witness of railway documentation nor of any other police investigation / inquest though he in the first instance deposed that the body of Mahendra was identified by him.
In view of this evidence, it is apparent that Radheshyam is not an eye witness. He is a planted witness who has been planted to take advantage of benevolent provisions of Railways Act, 1989. Admittedly Smt. Kelo Devi is not an eye witness. Therefore scrutiny of her evidence is not required. Besides this there is evidence in form of DRM report, wherein Station Master of Phaphund, submitted his memo showing that at 18.12.2007 train no. 1 P.S.M. had arrived at Phaphund station at 22:35 hours and had departed from said station at 22:37 hours. It is also mentioned that usual time of this train is 20:15 hours when it departs from Phaphund It reaches Achalda at 20:44 hours and then covers distance of about 19 kms from Achalda to Bharthana and reaches Bharthana at 21:03 hours. When this fact is taken into consideration then contention of Radheshyam that train reached Achalda at 9:30 ? 9:40 pm is not made out in as muchas, as per report of the Station Master train could not have reached Achalda which is a station at Kanpur ? Etawah section when Phaphund is followed by Achalda and then Achalda is followed by Bharthana and Bharthana is followed by Etawah. Thus it is apparent that learned Tribunal admittedly appreciated the evidence on record and has held that cause of death is not due to fall from Shikohabad passenger train and has rightly dismissed the claim petition. Thus impugned award does not call for any interference even on re appreciation of evidence available on record and therefore appeal fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.2.2021 S.K.S.