Patna High Court
Punam Devi vs The Union Of India on 27 February, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar
Bench: Rakesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.14 of 2010
===========================================================
Against the order dated 07.09.2009 passed in Case No. O.A. 00299/1999 passed by
Sri H.G. Sharma the learned Member (Technical) of The Railway Claims Tribunal,
Patna Bench at Patna.
===========================================================
Punam Devi W/O Late Lalan Yadav R/O Village- Punama, P.S. Wazirganj, Distt.
Gaya, At Present Residing At Dhaniya Bagicha, P.O. Delahn, P.S. Gaya (T), Distt.
Gaya
.... .... Applicant /Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India, Through The General Manager Eastern Railway, Kolkata 3-
Koelaghat Street, Kolkata
.... ....Respondent/Respondent
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Krishna Mohan Murari
For the Respondent : Mr. Anil Singh
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 27-02-2012
The present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been preferred against an order dated
07.09.2009passed in Case No. OA 00299 of 1999 by Sri H.G. Sharma, learned Member (Technical) of the Railway Claims Tribunal, 2 Patna High Court MA No.14 of 2010 dt.27-02-2012 2/7 Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the 'Claims Tribunal'). By the said order the learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 125 of the Railway Act, 1989 read with Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
2. Short fact of the case is that the claimant/appellant had filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000.00/- in the Claims Tribunal on the ground that her husband while traveling as a bona fide passenger had fallen down from a running train in between Gurpa and Gajhandi Railway Station on 06/07.02.1999. It was alleged that the husband of the claimant was returning from Gomo to Gaya and for the said journey he had purchased a second class ticket from Gomo Railway Station for coming to Gaya and boarded the Express Train in the night of 06/07. 02.1999. During the said journey accidentally he fell down between Gurpa and Gajhandi Railway Station (near Jaipur village) at K.M. 432 and received grievous injuries. In the morning of 07.02.1999 some people noticed the husband of the claimant in serious and almost unconscious condition, and thereafter, Ex-Mukhiya of Jaipur Panchayat namely, Sri Prasadi Yadav, was informed, who went to the site of untoward incident, to whom, her husband disclosed his name and address, and thereafter, he became unconscious. While Sri Prasadi Yadav was carrying her 3 Patna High Court MA No.14 of 2010 dt.27-02-2012 3/7 husband to hospital on way he succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of fardbeyan of Prasadi Yadav a U.D. case bearing no. 03 of 1999 dated 08.02.1999 was got registered at Fatehpur Police Station and same was forwarded to G.R.P., Koderma. In the case inquest report was prepared and autopsy was held on the dead body of the husband of the claimant at Magadh Medical College Hospital, Gaya, on the same day i.e. 07.02.1999, and thereafter, dead body was handed over for its cremation. Before the learned Claims Tribunal only the claimant / appellant was examined as A.W. 1. Besides her oral examination, copy of fardbeyan was got exhibited as A-1, copy of final report as A-2, inquest report as A-3, post-mortem examination report as A-4, dependency certificate A-5 and statement on oath of the claimant as A-6.
3. In the case before the learned Claims Tribunal the respondent / Eastern Railway, Kolkata appeared and filed written statement raising objection to the claim petition on the plea that the alleged accident was not an untoward incident in terms of Section 123 of the Railways Act, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, besides other grounds.
4. After hearing the parties, the learned Claims Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the claim petition.
5. At the time of hearing Sri Krishna Mohan Murari, 4 Patna High Court MA No.14 of 2010 dt.27-02-2012 4/7 learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and this was evident from the fact mentioned in the inquest report. It was submitted that while preparing inquest report, from the right hand pocket of full pant of the deceased a railway ticket from Gomo to Gaya was recovered. This fact has specifically been mentioned in column no. 7 of the inquest report i.e. A-3. It has also been argued that the deceased for certain work had gone to Gomo and after purchasing ticket for Gaya from Gomo he had boarded the express train and due to heavy rush and jerk he fell down from the running train which is evident from the materials available on record. But the learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim on unsustainable reason which is required to be interfered with by this court.
6. Sri Anil Singh, learned counsel for respondent / Union of India through General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata has vigorously opposed the prayer of the appellant and submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petition. While referring to the inquest report i.e. A-3 he submits that the words showing recovery of ticket from the pocket of the deceased in column no. 7 appears to have been inserted subsequently since such averment is in different writing than the writing of the contents of the inquest report. He further submits that the claimant had not produced copy of 5 Patna High Court MA No.14 of 2010 dt.27-02-2012 5/7 the seized ticket nor any witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimant / appellant to corroborate the fact that the deceased had purchased ticket and he had boarded the train and thereafter he had fallen from the train. Sri Anil Singh has argued that in the claim petition the claimant has come out as only hearsay witness and on the evidence of a hearsay witness no reliance can be placed and as such the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petition.
7. Besides hearing the parties I have also perused the materials available on record.
8. After going through the impugned order it is evident that the learned Claims Tribunal while rejecting the claim petition had primarily based reliance on the fact that the assertion made in the inquest report was doubtful and it was interpolated. Neither of the parties before the learned Claims Tribunal had taken any step for summoning the original / certified copy of the inquest report as well as final report submitted by the Police in U.D. Case No. 03 of 1999 dated 08.02.1999 for its perusal or getting the same exhibited. If the learned Claims Tribunal had reason to believe that interpolation in the inquest report was done, in that event, it was required on the part of the learned Claims Tribunal to summon the original inquest report. The learned Claims Tribunal has also noticed that the copy of the final report which was brought on record was not 6 Patna High Court MA No.14 of 2010 dt.27-02-2012 6/7 readable and even then he has recorded some definite finding on the basis of said final report.
9. The court is of the opinion that once a document which was filed before the learned Claims Tribunal was doubted as interpolated by the learned Claims Tribunal, then it was required on the part of the learned Claims Tribunal to see original of the record, and only thereafter, the learned Tribunal was to proceed with the case. If in a judicial or quasi judicial proceeding an interpolated document is brought on record for getting any benefit then certainly it amounts to commission of criminal offence and in such situation the concerned person(s) is/are required to be dealt with the matter stringently.
10. In view of the fact that in absence of original / certified copy of the inquest report and also the fact that on the basis of a final report which was not readable the learned Claims Tribunal has recorded the finding in the present case, the court is of the opinion that the order impugned is required to be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the court below to take steps for examining original / certified copy of the inquest report as well as final report submitted by the Police in the U.D. case, and thereafter, decide the matter in accordance with law. If the learned Tribunal is satisfied with the fact that interpolation had taken place in the proceeding before the Tribunal, in that event, it would be required for 7 Patna High Court MA No.14 of 2010 dt.27-02-2012 7/7 the Tribunal to take steps for lodging complaint before the competent court for commission of such criminal offence against the accused persons involved in the case.
11. With above observation and direction the matter is remitted back to the court below. The appeal stands disposed of.
12. Let a copy of this order along with the Lower Court Record be remitted back to the learned Claims Tribunal forthwith.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) N.A.F.R. Praful/-