Union of India vs Tilak Ram

Rajes Kumar and S.S. Chauhan, JJ.—Since both the appeals arise from the judgment and award dated 22.1.2004, they are being heard together and decided by a common judgment.

The present first appeal from orders are directed against the judgment and award dated 22.1.2004 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Case Nos. O.A. 0100106 and O.A. 0100107.

The facts giving rise to the present appeals in short are that the wife of the applicant. Smt. Sukhraja (deceased), as alleged, was travelling with her minor son Vikas alias Pinku (deceased) after purchasing second class ticket on 8.6.2001 by Train No. 136 passenger from Lucknow to Dariabad. When the train reached Safedabad, the wife of the applicant fell down with her son from the train. Both of them sustained serious injuries and as a result of the said injuries they expired on the spot. The G.R.P. was given information by the Porter and thereafter the police of Barabanki prepared the inquest report and the postmortem of both the deceased was performed.

Claim petitions were filed by the respondentapplicant claiming compensation as sole dependant in Case No. O.A. 0100106 and requested to award compensation to all the dependants of the deceased in Case No. O.A. 0100107.

The appellantrespondent filed written statement stating therein that the deceased were found in yard on Line No. 1 at Safedabad station and it was also denied that the deceased were bona fide passengers.

On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the Tribunal and after recording evidence and on appraisal thereof, the claim petitions were decided awarding compensation in favour of the respondentappellant. The dependants were specified as Tilak Ram, husband of the deceased Smt. Sukraja, Guddu and Master Raju S/o deceased, Km. Manju Km. Sanju and Km. Khushbu D/o deceased. The Northern Railway feeling aggrieved with the judgment and award dated 22.1.2004 has come up in appeal before this Court.

Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that respondentapplicant has earlier filed a Case No. 112 of 2001 claiming compensation and in that application he has admitted that the deceased were not bona fide passengers. She has also submitted that the respondentapplicant admitted in his application that on account of family dispute, the deceased left the house of the applicant and went to the railway station where she was dashed by the train.

Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other side has submitted that the Case No. 112 of 2001 was filed by an advocate, who was never authorised by the respondentapplicant. The claim petition was filed by registered post, which was never pursued after its registration. This itself is sufficient to prove that some unauthorised person colluded with the appellant and filed a false claim in order to deny the rightful claim of compensation to the respondentapplicant.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

The finding recorded by the Tribunal indicates that the deceased were having valid tickets and they were bona fide passengers. The minor contradiction has been ignored by the Tribunal on account of the fact that the brother of the deceased, Babu Lal accompanied the deceased to the railway station and purchased the second class ticket from Lucknow to Dariabad and handed over to the deceased. He also filed an affidavit and was crossexamined at length. In the affidavit he has stated that he went to the railway station to see them off and when the train started he went back to his house.

The main sheet anchor of the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the respondentapplicant himself has admitted in the earlier case i.e., Case No. 112 of 2001 that there was some dispute between the husband and wife just 24 hours before the accident and she left the house and throw herself before the train where she was run over by the train.

The Tribunal has taken note of the fact that this case was sent through the registered post by a Counsel Sri R.L. Vishwakarma, which was received in the Tribunal on 19.1.2001 and was registered on 20.1.2001, but thereafter nobody came forward to prosecute the said case, neither the claimant nor the Counsel. The papers of the Case No. 112 of 2001 also indicate that signatures of the applicant is on the last page of the application and is also on the front page of the application, which is index. However, his signatures on page Nos. 3/1, 3/2 and 3/3/have not been obtained, which goes to indicate that the Counsel obtained signatures of the applicant on the plain papers before getting the application prepared. The affidavit filed before the competent officer of G.R.P. bears revenue stamp, which goes to indicate that the affidavit is a forged one. It appears that the counsel got the signatures of Tilak Ram, applicant and got the forged affidavit prepared and no explanation has been given as to why the affidavit was moved before the Incharge G.R.P. The report submitted by the Investigating Officer also indicates that the death of the deceased occurred on account of the accidental falling from the train. In the police station also the dead body was identified by the applicant and his brother and an application was given that his wife went to the brother''s fatherinlaw''s house and when she was coming back, she accidentally fell down from the train. If there was any affidavit given to the G.R.P., then the same would have been mentioned in the final report. The final report submitted by the G.R.P. itself is a proof of the fact that the affidavit was got prepared subsequently and was never given to G.R.P. as stated by the Counsel for the respondentappellant. It seems that all these documents were manipulated in order to deny the compensation to the applicants. It is not believe worthy that the claimant himself has admitted that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that there was some family dispute and after altercation the deceased left the house. The applicantrespondent never appeared in the said case nor the Counsel, who filed the case.

Looking to the conduct of R.L. Vishwakarma and the contents of the earlier application, it cannot be believed that the said application was moved by the respondentapplicant at any point of time, but the respondentapplicants were made victim of some fraud played by some advocate. The Tribunal has extensively considered the evidence and has also examined the statement of the witnesses as well as the genuineness of the accident. The arguments advanced by the Counsel for the appellants has got no force under law. We are of the opinion that while allowing the claim petitions, the Tribunal has committed no illegality.

The appeals are devoid of merit. They are accordingly dismissed.

Appeals Dismissed.