Suchitto Kumar Das JUDGMENT
Suchitto Kumar Das, Vice Chairman
1. The applicant, Sundari Hembram has filed this claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 on 07.09.2011 seeking compensation for an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- for herself as well as on behalf of her husband, Lakkshami Ram Hembram @ Lakshami Ram Tudu and wife of the deceased, Jhumri Murmu, as dependants for the death of her son, Sonatan Tudu who stated to have died in an untoward railway accident. The averments made by the applicant in brie fare that on 27.09.2010 at about 4.00 p.m., her son, Sonatan Tudu, since deceased, boarded Dn. Katwa-Burdwan local train for his journey from Katwa to Bankapi Railway Stations. It is pleaded that at about 5.30 p.m., when the said train was entering before Bankapi Railway Station, her son, accidentally fell down from the said running train at K.M. Post No. 40/7 and died. It is further pleaded that over the incident a Police Case has been registered at Katwa GRPS vide U.D. Case No. 25/10 dated 27.9.2010. It is also pleaded that the victim was having journey ticket which was lost duet incident.
2. To contest the case, the Respondent, Eastern Railway has filed written statement wherein it has denied and disputed almost all the material allegations of the applicant. It has contended inpara-3 of the 'WS' that there was no untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 on the alleged date and place which may come under the purview of Section 124 of the Railways (Amendment) Act, 1994 and the alleged incident arising out of that may tantamount to self-inflicted injury. It has further contended in para-4 of the 'WS' that the applicant is to provide strict proof that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train, in question. It has finally prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
3. Upon pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 15.07.2015:-
1) Whether the deceased, Sonatan Tudu was travelling from Katwa to Bankapi Stations by Katwa-Burdwan local train on 27.9.2010?
2) Whether the death of the deceased, Sonatan Tudu was caused due to an 'untoward incident' as defined under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act?
3) Whether the applicants are the sole dependants of the deceased, Sonatan Tudu and are entitled to get compensation, as claimed?
4) Whether the deceased, Sonatan Tudu was a bona fide railway passenger on the date of incident?
5) Relief.
4. To prove her case, the applicant, Sundari Hembram has produced herself as oral evidence (AW/1). The applicant has not produced any other witness. The applicant has furnished certain documents which are marked as follows:-
1) Copy of Voter I/Card of Sundari Hembram. ---- Exhibit? A/1.
2) Copy of Aadhaar Card of Sundari Hembram. ---- Exhibit? A/2
3) Copy of Aadhaar Card of Laxmiram Tudu. ---- Exhibit? A/3
4) Copy of Voter I/Card of Sonatan Tudu. ---- Exhibit? A/4
5) Death Certificate of Sonatan Tudu. ---- Exhibit? A/5
4.1 Further, during the course of proceedings, Ld. Counsel for the applicant filed certified copy of certain documents which were marked as follows:-
1) Certified copy of F.I.R. ------ Exhibit A/6
2) Certified copy of Investigation Report. ------ Exhibit A/7
3) Certified copy of Dead Body Challan. ------ Exhibit A/8
4) Certified copy of Final Police Report. ------ Exhibit A/9
5) Certified copy of P.M. Report. ------ Exhibit A/10
5. On the other hand the respondent railway has neither adduced any evidence nor produced any document.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issue Nos. 1, 2 & 4:-
6.1 For the sake of cogency, these three issues are taken up together for analysis.
6.2 From the record, it appears that........