Vijay Mal Bhakt vs Union of India

Rakesh Kumar, J.—The present Appeal under Section 23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been preferred against an order dated 16.10.2012 passed by Sri J.D. Goswami, Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the "Claims Tribunal") in Claim Application No. OA00337 of 2002. By the said order learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim application filed by the appellant. Short fact of the case is that the appellant had claimed compensation due to death of his unmarried son in an untoward incidence, who died after falling from running train. The claim petition was filed under Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 read with Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 claiming compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/-. In claim application it was disclosed that the son of the appellant was going to Biha Pukhri, Assam for his livelihood and after purchasing second class Express train ticket on 31.7.2002 for his journey from Siwan to Guwahati Junction, he boarded the general bogey in Awadh Assam Express at Siwan. However, near Umesh Nagar Railway Station due to heavy rush and jerk he fell down from running train and died on the spot. In respect of death G.R.P., Khagaria registered a case vide U.D. Case No. 9 of 2002 dated 31.7.2002. After preparing inquest report dead body was sent to Sadar Hospital, Khagaria for post mortem examination. Thereafter, the claim petition was filed claiming compensation as indicated above. However, the learned Claims Tribunal after examining evidence and hearing the parties rejected the claim application by the impugned order, which has been assailed, in the present appeal.

Sri Pravin Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant assailing the order of the Claims Tribunal has argued that the learned Claims Tribunal without any basis or rhyme and reason rejected the claim application primarily on the plea that final report submitted by the Police mentioning therein that death of deceased had occurred due to fall from running train was tampered. Since a specific plea was taken by learned counsel for the appellant that there was no reason to create doubt on the final report, thus, during the course of hearing on 22.7.2014 this court wanted to get the matter enquired on the question of findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal in respect of tampering of final report. Since it was a serious question that in a judicial proceeding certain tampered and fabricated documents were brought on record, which was noticed by the Claims Tribunal, this court directed the Vigilance Investigation Bureau to conduct an enquiry in respect of documents brought before the Claims Tribunal from the side of the claimant. The order dated 22.7.2014 is quoted hereinbelow:--

"The present appeal has been preferred against an order dated 16.10.2012 passed by Sri J.D. Goswami, Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench in Claim Application No. OA00337 of 2002. By the said order, the learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the claims. In paragraph-8 of the Judgment, the Claims Tribunal has noticed that tampered final report of G.R.P., Khagaria was brought on record as Ext.-A/3.

In this case, lower court record was called for, which has been received and same is on the record. On perusal of Lower Court Record, it appears that an unclaimed dead body was received in the hospital on 1.8.2002. Surprisingly, on the next day i.e. on 2nd August, 2002, the police submitted final report, wherein the name and address of the deceased was mentioned and many facts were disclosed.

Prima facie, the learned Claims Tribunal had noticed that the said final report as Ext.-A/3 was tampered. Of course, the learned Tribunal has noticed the final report as tampered, the learned Tribunal instead of directing for instituting a criminal case for thorough investigation has simply rejected the claim case. The court is of the opinion that once in a quasi judicial proceeding, tampered or forged document is brought on record, same is required to be thoroughly enquired. In that view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that before proceeding further in the present appeal, it is necessary to direct for conducting an enquiry regarding veracity of documents, which were brought on record before the Claims Tribunal.

In this case, it would be appropriate that Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Govt. of Bihar may conduct an enquiry, particularly regarding veracity of final report of GRP, Khagaria (Ext.-A/3), Inquest Report (Ext.-A/4), copy of dead body challan (Ext.-A/5) as well as other documents, which were brought on record from the side of the claimants.

While conducting enquiry, the Vigilance Investigation Bureau would be at liberty to enlarge the scope of enquiry."

Subsequently, by order dated 4.8.2014 this court directed the Registry to hand over photocopy of Lower Court Record with memo of appeal as well as the order to Sri Rama Kant Sharma, learned senior counsel (Law Officer for Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Govt. of Bihar, Patna). Sri Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that before the Claims Tribunal from the side of claimant two witnesses were got examined and besides oral evidence copy of police report, inquest report, dead body challan, copy of post mortem examination report and Memo issued by the Station Master besides other documents were exhibited to establish the claim. He submits that the respondent/Railway though filed an ornamental written statement, the Railway failed to produce any evidence refuting the claim and as such, the learned Claims Tribunal has committed serious error in rejecting the claim case.

Sri Sidharth Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent/Railway has vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant. He tried to persuade the court that the learned Claims Tribunal has categorically considered that it was a case of "run over" and not a case of death due to fall from running train. He submits that the case of "run over" is considered as self-inflicted injury which does not attract any compensation. Accordingly, he has prayed for rejection of the appeal.

In this case in compliance with the order of this court the Vigilance Investigation Bureau after completion of enquiry has submitted report along with affidavit duly sworn by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau. For just decision in the matter it would be appropriate to quote the report of the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, which is as follows:--

"The present appeal has been preferred against an order dated 16.10.2012 passed by Sri J.D. Goswami, Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench in Claim Application No. OA00337 of 2012. By the said order the learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the claims. In paragraph-8 of the judgment, the Claims Tribunal has noticed that tampered final report of GRP, Khagaria was brought on record as Ext.-A/3.

....In this case, it would be appropriate that Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Govt. of Bihar may conduct an enquiry, particularly regarding veracity of final report of GRP, Khagaria (Ext.-A/3), Inquest Report (Ext.-A/4) copy of dead body challan (Ext.-A/5) as well as other documents, which were brought on record from the side of the claimants.

While conducting enquiry, the Vigilance Investigation Bureau would be at liberty to enlarge the scope.

Sri Rama Kant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel (Law Officer for Vigilance Investigation Bureau) is required to communicate this order to Director General, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Government of Bihar to conduct enquiry and submit report. It is expected that Vigilance Investigation Bureau may submit report within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.

The learned Claims Tribunal after hearing the parties has framed the following issues, which are:--

(1) Whether the deceased was a victim of alleged untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989?

(2) Whether the deceased, Umesh Bhakt was a bona fide passenger of 5610 DN Awadh-Assam Express on 31.7.2002 at the time of alleged untoward incident?

(3) Whether the claim application of the applicant is maintainable?

(4) Whether the applicant/dependants of the deceased are entitled to receive compensation, as claimed for?

The learned Claims Tribunal has decided the issue No. 1 against the claimant mainly on the ground that the final report of GRP, Khagaria (Ext.-A/3) was a tampered document. This fact has been incorporated in paragraph No. 8 of the judgment, which is quoted below as follows:--

"8. The memo issued by SM/Umesh Nagar (Ext.-A/7) at 12 Hrs. of 31.7.2002, clearly states that an unidentified male has been run over by some train. This fact is further confirmed by the Inquest Report of Rail Police. Khagaria at 14.30 Hrs. of 31.7.2012. Here too it is said that the deceased died after being run over by some train. The final report of GRP Khagaria (Ext. A/3) is a tampered document. In this document, the last para of the report, indicating cause of death has been deleted by using chemicals and new information incorporated through repeated photocopy technique. I do not find it reliable and hence, the same is rejected."

The learned Claims Tribunal surprisingly has discussed regarding the difference between the "run over" and "accidental falling" and on the basis of materials on record even it has concluded that "mutilation takes place only when one is knocked down (run over) by a train engine and the sharp flanges of the wheels roll over the victim". The court is surprised to notice such type of findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that too, without any basis for such conclusion. In the present case right from the very beginning it was the case of the claimant that deceased had boarded the train at Siwan and he was going to Assam through Awadh-Assam Express. Once he had boarded the train at Siwan which was corroborated by documentary and oral evidence there was no reason to record a finding that it was a case of "run over" since there was no reason for the deceased to come before the running train. After the death, while preparing inquest report, from the possession of the deceased a valid railway ticket was recovered which was mentioned in column No. 7 of the inquest report. The ticket categorically elaborates that it was valid for traveling from Siwan to Guwahati. Once the deceased had boarded the train at Siwan it is difficult to draw an inference that the deceased was "run over" by the train. Accordingly, the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal that it was a case of "run over" is absolutely contrary to the materials available on record. Even during enquiry by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau it was found that there was no tampering in the police report which contained the fact that deceased died due to fall from running train. The court is of the opinion that once there was a doubt in the mind of the learned Claims Tribunal that a tampered document was brought in the court proceeding, instead of recording a finding holding the document as tampered, it was necessary for the Claims Tribunal to get the veracity of the document enquired into. Moreover, if in a judicial proceeding anyone brings a forged document, such action attracts penal provision and the person concerned is liable to be prosecuted. However, the learned Claims Tribunal on its own finding, without any cogent reason, has declared the documents, particularly the police report as a tampered document. It is specific case of the claimant that after noticing the dead body lying on the track, a Memo was issued by the Station Master and on the basis of the said Memo police arrived at the place of occurrence and prepared inquest report, which describes regarding recovery of railway ticket from possession of the de-ceased. Of course, at that very time the dead body was of unknown person, but subsequently, after getting information the claimant arrived and on the basis of photograph of the deceased he identified that that his son had died in the accident. In the case claimant witness No. 2 on affidavit has categorically stated that he had come to Siwan Railway Station and he corroborated regarding purchase of railway ticket from Siwan to Guwahati and stated that in his presence the deceased had boarded Awadh-Assam Express on the date of occurrence. The report which has been submitted by Vigilance Investigation Bureau in compliance with the order of this court categorically explains that the police report was not a forged document. The police report i.e. Ext.-A/3 specifically states that deceased was the son of the appellant, who died due to fall from running train and he was having railway ticket and as such the deceased was a bona fide passenger. In view of the facts and circumstances, the court is left with no option but to quash the order of the Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed and the order of the Claims Tribunal is set aside. In view of the evidence on record, it is held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he died in an untoward incidence. Accordingly, the claimant/appellant is entitled to get compensation amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- as provided under the Railways Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. The compensation amount is directed to be paid to the appellant within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order along with interest at the rate of 4% which is to be calculated from the date of filing of the claim case i.e. 24.10.2002 till the date of payment.