Instant appeal has been filed by one of the claimant, Manoj Singh under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 28.03.2012 passed by Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench relating to Claim Application No.0A 000149 of 2001 dismissing the claim petition on contest without cost.

2. I. A. No.7880 of 2013 has been filed on behalf of appellant on account of some sort of infirmities apparent over memo of appeal putting adverse impact upon its prospect due to non-impleadment of other heirs either applicant or respondent and so, it has been pleaded that remaining applicants be impeaded as respondents, who were noticed and as they had not objected vide order dated 13.04.2016 been acknowledged as respondent and to this effect the memo of appeal has been directed to be corrected/ amended.

3. Initially, Claim Application No.0A 000149 of 2001 was filed by Jaimanti Devi, wife of deceased Sargun Singh, who allegedly died on account of untoward incident on 06.10.2000 in a way to Kolkata from Nawada through Train No.574 DN Gaya-Jhajha DMU at Lakhisarai Station for which, F.I.R. (U.D. Case) was instituted on the basis of memo issued by one Nand Kishore Razak, Ticket Collector informing the G.R.P., who lifted the injured to hospital where he was declared dead during course of treatment.

4. Respondent/ opposite party-Railway appeared filed written statement wherein the assertion of the claimant has been controverted and it has further been submitted that deceased was not at all victim of an untoward incident while travelling with Train No.574-DN Gaya-Jhajha DMU. Furthermore, it has also been pleaded that applicant happens to be under legal obligation to discharge that deceased was bonafide passenger and that the fact does fall under either of the exceptions so enumerated under Section 124-A of the Railway Amendment Act, 1994. Furthermore, it has also been pleaded that applicant happens to be under strict liability to prove its case.

5. After having issue framed, the trial commenced whereunder witnesses were examined on behalf of appellant/ claimant, certain documents were exhibited at their end. However, nothing substantial has been adduced on behalf of respondent/ opposite party.

6. From perusal of the judgment, it is evident that learned Tribunal had disbelieved the case of the applicant on so many grounds, including there happens to be some sort of deficiency persisting on the police report with regard to identification of deceased as the F.I.R. was against unknown coupled with the fact that so many police report have been filed at the end of the appellant/ claimant bearing different serial numbers whereupon the sanctity of the aforesaid documents have been seen with seriousness and further, declared to be suspicious as well as forged and further, disbelieved the same. Testimony of oral evidence have also been rejected on the ground of being suspicious one.

7. Whenever claim petition is filed in terms of Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, its procedure has been prescribed under Section 18 thereof, and for better appreciation, the same is quoted below:-

“18. Action on application for applicant’s default -

       (1) Where on the date fixed for hearing of the application or on any other date to which such hearing may be adjourned, the applicant does not appear Substituted by G.S.R. 700(E), dated 26-11-1991 (w.e.f. 26.11.1991) [when the application is called] for hearing, the Tribunal may, in its discretion, either dismiss the application for default or hear and decide it on merit.

(2) Where an application has been dismissed for default and the applicant files an application within thirty days from the date of dismissal and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the application was called for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the order dismissing the application and restore the same:

Provided, however, where t