JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Krishna Mohan Murari, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, learned senior panel counsel for the Railways assisted by Mr. Lokesh, Advocate for the Union of India (Eastern Railways). Respondent no. 2 is also represented by learned counsel for the sole appellant.

2. The appellant is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 24.04.2013 passed in Claim Application No. OA000177/2002 by learned Member (Technical) of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal has been pleased to dismiss the claim application on the ground that :-(i) The applicants failed to establish that late Sanjay was either a bonafide passenger of train no. 054EMU on 11.03.2002 or he died in any untoward incident on that day, as claimed, (ii) the identification of Smt. Geeta Devi and Ramu were not established. Smt. Geeta Devi had not signed the substitution petition filed on 16.07.2012. Further the voter card of Geeta Devi was showing that she was 22 years old when Sanjay died, (iii) Even the age of the deceased remains doubtful; and (iv) Teeja Devi never made Geeta Devi and Ramu a co-applicant in her claim application. She filed no dependency certificate at the time of filing her claim.

Brief facts of the case

3. It appears from the records that one Teeja Devi filed the original application dated 09.07.2002 before learned Tribunal claiming that on 11.03.2002 her son Late Sanjay Khatik (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) while travelling by 054EMU passenger from Mughalsarai to Sasaram died in an untoward incident. In her application she made a specific statement that she was the only legal heir for the compensation. The deceased was unmarried. She, therefore, claimed a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-(Four Lakhs) by filing an application under Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as the “Act of 1989”).

4. It further transpires from the record that one order dated 09.07.2002 is written showing filing of an application. Order is written to register it and copy of the application be given to the respondents and let the reply be filed by 05.09.2002. There is, however, no signature of the Additional/Assistant Registrar. Thereafter, again in a peculiar manner there is an order “Put up before Bench on 26.03.2012”. What happened during almost ten (10) years period in & between 09.07.2002 and 26.03.2012 is not known. Thereafter, on 04.04.2012 the issues were framed. On 15.05.2012. Learned counsel for the applicant informed the Tribunal that Teeja Devi is no more. She expired on 14.01.2011.

After more than one year one substitution petition with an application for condonation of delay was filed on 02.07.2012 with a prayer to expunge the name of late Teeja Devi and to substitute her married daughter Smt. Geeta Devi and unmarried son Ramu who were said to be legal heirs/ legal representatives of the original applicant. The substitution application was admitted vide order dated 16.07.2012 and both the applicants were directed to depose as A.W.1 and A.W.2. They were directed to file affidavits of proposed witnesses.

5. The substitution petition was signed only by Ramu. The Tribunal directed learned counsel for the applicants on 13.08.2012 to produce Ramu for cross-examination on 03.09.2012. Ramu failed to turn-up on that day, and despite three other dates fixed for his appearance by the learned Tribunal Ramu did not turn up.

6. As regards Geeta Devi, it has transpired that she appeared as applicant witness no. 1, identified herself as wife of one Tulsi Prasad and made statement that one ‘parosi mama’ had got the rail ticket for Sanjay on the fateful day and put him on train no. 054EMU Passenger at Mughalsarai. She claimed that Sanjay fell down from the train but she could not mention about the place of accident. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that she did not know the date of inci