JUDGMENT
P.K. Misra, J.
1. The General Manager, South Eastern Railway has filed this appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), challenging the decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to the widow and two children of the deceased-Rabindra Nath Jena.
2. . Claim application was filed by the widow of the deceased herself as well as on behalf of her children on the allegation that her husband, Rabindra Nath Jena, while travelling from Balikuda-Gopalpur to Bhubaneswar by DMU-1 on 25-10-1997 fell down from the train and subsequently died on account of the injuries sustained in the untoward incident.
3. Initially, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the matter was taken to the High Court in M.A. No. 375 of 1998 which was allowed on 7-12-1998 and the matter was remanded to the Claims Tribunal for fresh disposal. Thereafter, after receiving further evidence the Tribunal on reconsideration of the matter has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- which is under challenge in the present appeal.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the subsequent decision of the Tribunal appeard to be as laconic as previous one and there has been no discussion of relevant evidence on record. The learned counsel appearing for both parties stated that since the entire evidence is on record the appeal should be disposed of on reconsideration of the entire materials on record and the matter need not be remanded to the Claims Tribunal for
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the allegations made in the claim application have not been proved by the claimant. It has been submitted that the onus is always on the claimant to prove that the deceased was a passenger in the train and there was an untoward incident as defined under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. It is further submitted that the materials on record rather indicate that the deceased had committed suicide.
6. The materials on record clearly indicate that there was an “untoward incident” resulting in the death of the deceased. Even assuming that there is some discrepancy between the allegations made in the claim application and the evidence adduced, the case of the claimant cannot be disbelieved, in toto, particularly, when, no explanation is forthcoming from the appellant explaining the nature of the incident. Before the Railway Claims Tribunal, no specific stand had been taken by the Railways about the alleged suicide by the deceased. Even there is no acceptable material on record to come to a conclusion that the deceased had committed suicide. The evidence adduced on behalf of the Railways on this aspect is based on hearsay. The witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the Railways have merely stated that they have heard from the people standing near the place of occurrence that the deceased had jumped on the track but not a single witness who had allegedly seen such jumping has been examined on behalf of the Railways. Moreover, in the absence of any specific plea raised by the Railways on this aspect, it would not be open to the Railways to depend upon the stray statements made here and there by some witnesses who do not have any direct knowledge in the matter. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W. 2 who has stated that the deceased fell down and was run over by the train appears to be acceptable in the absence of any effective cross-examination or rebuttal evidence.
7. It is vehemently contended that there is no material to show that the deceased was a passenger and there is no acceptable materials on record to show that he had boarded the train with a valid ticket. It is seen that a ticket has been produced which is marked as a document. Thus, it can he safely concluded that the deceased was a passenger.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.