[1] The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 challenging judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad dated 27.07.2009 in Case No.OA 0200041 on the grounds stated in the memo of appeal inter alia that the Tribunal has erred in appreciating the evidence and arriving at the contrary findings. It is also contended that the judgment and order passed based on various surmises and conjectures, which is not permissible under the law. It is also contended that the deceased met with an accident, but he had not accidentally fallen from the Memu train and, therefore, the basic requirement of section 123 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, is not complied. It is contended that the Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that the ticket was purchased and, therefore, the deceased was a bona fide passenger. However, it has not been appreciated that the deceased had collided with other train and, therefore, the application for claim is not maintainable. It is contended that the Tribunal has erroneously come to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger though the requirement of law has not been fulfilled, which would entitle for the compensation. It is contended that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the ticket No.3891782 was issued from Surat Railway Station, but it does not suggest that such ticket was purchased by the deceased to travel from Surat to Sanjan. It is contended that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the ticket was neither produced nor found by the police on search of the pockets and, therefore, the ticket was not available with the deceased, it cannot be said to be bona fide passenger and, therefore, the claim application would not be maintainable.
[2] Heard learned advocate Mr.Ravi Karnavat for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.U. M. Shastri for the respondents.
[3] Though the submissions have been made raising much emphasis with regard to the fact that the deceased was not bona fide purchaser, it is required to be mentioned that it is not in dispute that the accident has occurred and the deceased has died as a result of such railway accident. The Tribunal referred to the contentions which have been raised with regard to the evidence in detailed about the manner in which the accident occurred as at that time Tapi Ganga Express was also passing and the panchnama reveals that the deceased died, because of the collusion and part of his body was crushed by the train. After appreciation of evidence with regard to this aspect, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased was bona fide passenger who accidentally fell down from the train and untoward accident has taken place. It is also discussed by the Tribunal about the manner of the accident, but the fact remains that the deceased died as a result of the train accident and the ticket which has not been recovered from him by itself may not be a ground. From other evidence on record in the facts of the case, particularly the panchnama also, it is established that the deceased was a passenger who had met with an accident, and the ticket might not have been recovered by the police, however, it would not be a ground because the ticket number is also mentioned in diary produced by the wife of the deceased. The witness Deepak Laxman Matai has, in his cross-examination, stated that he was not certain whether deceased was cut by Patna Express or other train. The panchnama which is produced referred to the accident and the death of the deceased in such railway accident cannot be disputed. The contention that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, also does not require any further elaboration in view of the other evidence including the fact that even ticket number is also referred in the evidence. The factum of the accident and the death of the deceased have been established, and, therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal granting compensation which cannot be said to be erroneous. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conclusion and findings arrived at by the Tribunal on appreciation of evidence. A useful reference is made in the judgment of the Allahabad in the case of Sudha Singh and others Vs. Union of India reported in 2010 ACJ 2771 wherein it has been observed that the dismissal of the claim application on the ground that the ticket was not found or recovered from the possession of the deceased would not be justified.
[4] The present appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, stands dismissed.
[5] In view of the order passed in the abovementioned First Appeal, Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. Notice is discharged.
[ RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J. ] vijay