The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of 'untoward incident' as defined in section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, and the application of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003.

Dipankar Datta, J.

Aggrieved by rejection of her claim application under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereafter the 1989 Act) registered as Claim Application No. U/722/2005 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata vide judgment and order dated April 24, 2012, the claimant as appellant has preferred this appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

2. It was pleaded in the claim application that the husband of the claimant/appellant (hereafter the victim) while travelling in a local train accidentally fell down, suffered multiple injuries and died instantaneously. As such, she claimed Rs. 4 lakh on account of compensation.

3. At the trial, the claimant/appellant and one Samir Mukherjee, alleged co-passenger of the victim, adduced evidence as PWs 1 and 2 respectively. None adduced evidence on behalf of the railway, the respondent in the claim application. Upon consideration of the evidence led in course of the trial, the tribunal doubted that the victim was a passenger. The reason was no railway ticket was found on his person. Disbelieving the version of the claimant/appellant, it proceeded to return a finding that the victim did not die as a result of any accidental fall from a moving train but may have been run over. It was finally held that the claim not being covered by 'untoward incident' as defined in section 123(c) of the 1989 Act, the claimant/appellant was not entitled to any compensation.

4. We have heard Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the claimant/appellant and Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate for the respondent with patience, having regard to the claim of unnatural death of the victim in circumstances beyond his control not succeeding before the tribunal. However, despite the sympathy we have for the claimant/appellant and her children, we are unable to grant her any relief based on the evidence led before the tribunal and have no option but to dismiss the appeal for the reasons that follow.

5. It appears from the impugned judgment and order that the inquest report prepared under Section 174, Code of Criminal Procedure by the concerned police officer was before the tribunal and it had considered the same. The said report is a contemporaneous document which surfaced immediately after the dead body of the victim was located. On a reading of such report, we find that it was signed, inter alia, by the claimant/appellant and one Prabir Mukherjee, brother of PW-2. In course of cross-examination, PW-2 deposed that he had informed the said Prabir Mukherjee about the incident leading to death of the victim but that he (Prabir) would not adduce evidence in course of the trial. The said Prabir Mukherjee ultimately did not turn up as a witness to say that neither he nor the claimant/appellant was present at the time of inquest or that they did not sign the relevant report. Be that as it may, the claimant/appellant having signed the inquest report it would not be unreasonable to proceed on the premise that she had so signed upon looking into its contents and being aware of what she was acknowledging. The contents reveal that the police officer conducting the inquest had filled up the relevant form, more particularly Sl. no.3 thereof, inter alia, by mentioning that the body of the victim had been severed into two pieces as a result of a train running over the waist. Despite such severance of the body having been noted in the inquest report, and signed/acknowledged by the claimant/appellant, she did not plead so in her examination-in-chief on affidavit; instead, she pleaded that the victim died as a result of a head injury and other injuries suffered because of an accidental fall from the train. The reason why the claimant/appellant did not at all refer to severance of the body of the victim is shrouded in mystery. Lodging of the claim as an afterthought cannot, thus, be ruled out.

6. That apart, the fact of the victim suffering from neuro problems had also been admitted by the claimant/