JUDGMENT :

Bivas Pattanayak, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 10th April, 2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata Bench in Claim Application No. OA (IIU)/KOL/2013/0472 dismissing the claim application of the appellant-applicant filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

2. The brief fact of the case is that on 20th October, 2013 the deceased-victim purchased one railway ticket from Jiaganj in order to proceed to Berhampur railway station. The deceased-victim on the said date boarded Down Hazarduari Express at Jiaganj railway station when the train was stationary. Further when the train started to move, the deceased-victim could not control himself and due to overcrowding pressure of the passengers, he accidentally fell down from the running train and sustained grievous injuries. Soon after the accident, the deceased-victim was taken to Murshidabad Medical College where the admission of the victim was refused and thereafter, he was taken to N.R.S Medical College & Hospital, Kolkata on 21st October, 2013. Ultimately, the victim succumbed to his injuries on 29th October, 2013 at about 4:50 P.M. Furthermore, a police case was also registered under Entally P.S. vide No. 1034 dated 30.10.2013. On account of the sudden demise of the victim, due to such untoward incident, the father of the victim filed application for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- together with cost and interest as sole dependent under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

3. In order to establish his case, the applicant examined himself as A.W.1 and produced documents which have been marked as Exhibits A/1 to A/3 respectively.

4. The respondent-railway authorities keenly contested the claim application by filing its written statement denying inter alia the averments made by the applicant and precisely contended that the victim did not fall down from the running train on the alleged date and place. Further no untoward incident took place as made in the claim application. Moreover, the victim was not a bonafide passenger of the train.

5. The respondent-railways authorities did not adduce any evidence in support of its pleadings.

6. Upon considering the materials on record and the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant-applicant, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim application of the appellant-applicant.

7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of dismissal of the learned Tribunal, the applicant has preferred the present appeal.

8. Mr. Supratim Dhar, learned advocate for the appellant-applicant submitted that as per the evidence of the applicant, father of the deceased, it is quite evident that on the relevant date the victim purchased a railway ticket from Jiaganj to travel to Berhampur by Hazarduari Express. He also deposed that his deceased-son boarded the said train but accidentally fell down from the running train and sustained injuries. Such evidence of the father of the victim has remained unchallenged in cross-examination. The victim was shifted to N.R.S Medical College & Hospital and the report of the said hospital (Exhibit A/3) clearly shows that the patient stated of history of injury out of train accident. Such statement of the deceased just prior to his accident disclosing the circumstances, which has resulted in his death, is a dying declaration which is admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Bhajju Alias Karan Singh versus State of Madhya Pradesh, (2012) 4 SCC 327.

Further the report of the Berhampore GRPS clearly shows that upon inquiry, it revealed that the deceased fell down from running train i.e. Hazarduari Express. The post-mortem report also depict of death due to effect of injuries which is ante-mortem in nature. Therefore, the mate