S.P. Garg JUDGMENT
S.P. Garg, J.
1. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of Railway Accident Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, impugning the judgment of the Railways Claims Tribunal dated 23.05.2014 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants was dismissed. The appeal is contested by the respondent.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the deceased Mohan, appellants' son, while travelling by train No. 19023 Janta Express from Shakurbasti to Rohtak on 18.09.2012 accidently fell down from the running train near the housing board colony and suffered injuries. Subsequently, he succumbed to the injuries on 27.09.2012. It is claimed that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and had a valid MST. The claim petition was contested by the respondent before the Tribunal and it was averred that the victim was not a bonafide passenger; he did not sustain injuries due to fall; there was no accident on 18.09.2012 near housing board colony, Rohtak Railway Station, Haryana. The Tribunal had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim.
3. On the basis of the averments, following issues were framed:
(i) Whether the death of the deceased had occurred as a result of an untoward incident, as denied under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989?
(ii) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of train on the relevant day?
(iii) Whether the application of Shri Rajbir Singh is maintainable?
(iv) To what order/relief.
4. Appellant No. 1 Rajbir Singh examined himself as AW-1 and proved various documents Exhibited as AW-1/2 to AW-1/19. The respondent relied on various documents Exhibited as R-1 to R-47. By the impugned judgment, the claim preferred by the petitioners was declined. Aggrieved by the said order, the instant appeal has been preferred.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.
6. Primarily the claim was rejected as the learned Tribunal was of the view that there were inconsistent statements of the witnesses examined by the claimants. It was further noted that ASI Sanjay Kumar had manipulated the statements of the concerned witnesses and did not record the correct facts. The Tribunal was also of the view that victim's father had given inconsistent version as to when and from whom he came to know about the incident and when he arrived at the hospital. It was concluded by the learned Tribunal that the victim was not a bonafide passenger and no such incident as alleged had taken place.
7. The findings of the learned Tribunal seemingly are based upon conjectures and surmises and are not supported by any acceptable evidence on record. As noted above, the respondent did not produce any evidence in defence.
8. It is not at issue that at the time of incident the victim had a valid MST No. 17532605 from Shakurpur Basti to Rohtak. The occurrence took place on 18.09.2012 at around 03.00 p.m. near Housing Board Colony short of the destination station. Record reveals that after the accident, the victim sustained grievous injuries and finally he succumbed to injuries on 27.09.2012. Post-mortem examination on the body was conducted. Post-mortem report dated 28.09.2012 reveals that the cause of death was due to the suffering of the injuries described therein. The information as furnished by the police revealed that the cause of death was 'railway accident'. No valid reasons exist to disbelieve the contents of the post-mortem report prepared much prior to the filing of the claim petition i.e. on 28.09.2012.
9. DD No. 32 dated 27.09.2012 also records that the victim sustained injuries on 18.09.2012 in a 'railway accident' and had expired on 27.09.2012. Death report (Ex. AW-1/14) also records that the victim had sustained injuries in 'rail accident' (columns No. 7, 12 & 20).........