MANU/RL/0237/2018

BEFORE THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA

Claim Application No. OA (II u)/KOL/2014/0496

Decided On: 21.11.2018

Appellants: Tapan Dey
Vs.
Respondent: Union of India

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ajit Kumar Pande, Member (J) and P.K. Sinha

JUDGMENT

1. The applicant, Tapan Dey @ Tapan Kumar Dey has filed this claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 on 29.12.2014 seeking compensation for an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with cost and interest for himself as well as on behalf of his wife, Sandhya Dey as dependants for the death of his unmarried son, Tanmoy Dey who stated to have died in an untoward railway accident. The averments made by the applicant in brief are that on 09.06.2014, Tanmoy Dey, since deceased was travelling from Sealdahto Shyamnagar Railway Stations by local train and at about 08.40 p.m., his son accidentally fell down from the said running train near Shyamnagar Railway Station, sustained severe injuries on his person and with the help of local people was taken to B.N. Bose S.D. Hospital, Barrack pore where he declared brought dead. It is further pleaded that the victim was having monthly ticket bearing no. P-77010129 valid from 22.05.14 to 21.06.14 and Railway I/Card bearing no. G-74831341 and the said ticket was recovered from the pocket of the deceased which is kept under the custody of the applicant.

2. To contest the case, the Respondent, Eastern Railway has filed written statement wherein it has denied and disputed almost all the allegations contained in the application. It has further contended that the deceased neither fell down from the said running train nor did he receive serious injury on his person near Shyamnagar Railway Station. The deceased met with the accident as a result of his own negligence in crossing the track and got knocked down bypassing train. It has also denied that the victim held valid railway ticket and puts the applicant to provide strict proof thereof. It has finally prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

3. Upon pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 23.12.2015:-

1) Whether the deceased, Tanmoy Dey was a bona fide passenger by a local train on 09.06.2014?

2) Whether the deceased, Tanmoy Dey died due to any 'untoward incident' within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the I.R. Act, as claimed by the applicant?

3) Whether the applicant and other are dependants of the deceased?

4) Whether the applicant and other are entitled to get compensation and if so, how much

4. To prove his case, the applicant, Tapan Dey @ Tapan Kumar Dey appeared and gave evidence as witness (AW/1). No other witness has been produced on behalf of the applicant. During his evidence, the applicant has furnished certain documents which were marked as follows:-

1) Copy of Aadhar Card of Tanmoy Dey. --- - Exhibit - A/1.

2) Copy of Voter I/Card of Tanmoy Dey. --- - Exhibit - A/2

3) Copy of Voter I/Card of Sandhya Dey. --- - Exhibit - A/3

4) Copy of Death Certificate of Tanmoy Dey. --- - Exhibit - A/4

5) Copy of Memo No. 615/R/15 dt. 17.7.15. ---- Exhibit - A/5

6) Copy of a letter dt. 16.7.15 of OC/Titagarh P.S. ---- Exhibit - A/6

7) Certified copy of P.M. Report. --- - Exhibit - A/7

8) Certified copy of FIR. --- - Exhibit - A/8

9) Certified copy of Final Police Report. --- - Exhibit - A/9

10) Original Railway Monthly Ticket along with its I/Card---- Exhibit - A/10

5. On the other hand, though the respondent railway has not adduced any evidence, but has filed DRM's Report which is marked as Exhibit R/1.

Issue Nos. 1 & 2:-

6.1 For the sake of cogency, these two issues are taken up together for analysis.

6.2 The applicant, Tapan Dey @ Tapan Kumar Dey appeared before the Tribunal and gave evidence as AW/1 wherein he has reiterated more or less the same facts, as stated in the original claim application. During cross-examination, the applicant (AW/1)stated that the victim was his son and he used to work in a private company at Kolkata. In his cross-examination, the applicant (AW/1) further stated that he was not the eyewitness of the incident. Some nearby persons of place of incident gave him the information about the incident ........