The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal and wider interpretation of the provisions of the Railways Act to advance the object of the statute and ensure compensation for victims of railway accidents.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. - Heard the parties.

2. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment/ award dated 03.01.2012 passed in case no. TAU/RNC/2001/0018 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, whereby and where under the claim for compensation has been dismissed.

3. The case of the applicants-appellants in brief is that the deceased Raju Ansari was travelling in the train No.8605 Up (Jharkhand Express) on 28.03.2001 along with his family members including his father who has been examined as A.W.-1, his cousin who has been examined as A.W.-2, the wife and daughter of A.W.-2 with a common ticket. The common original journey ticket has been marked Ext.A5. Raju with others was travelling from Bokaro Steel City to New Delhi as bona fide passengers and while so travelling the deceased Raju Ansari accidentally fell down from the running train between Parasnath Railway Station and Koderma Railway Station and sustained injuries. Raju succumbed to the injuries sustained due to the said accidental fall. Before the Railway Claims Tribunal, the respondent filed its written statement wherein it was pleaded that as per the Fardbeyan, the deceased Raju Ansari went to the gate to spit and his head hit a pole and he fell down. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues:-

Issues

1. Was the death of Raju Ansari because he accidentally fell from Jharkhand Express on 28.03.2001?

2. Was he a passenger of the said train?

3. Reliefs?

4. In support of their case, the applicants-appellants altogether examined two witnesses namely Phaku Mian, examined as A.W.-1, who was the father of the deceased and Mohammad Nasim, examined as A.W.-2, who was the cousin of the deceased. Besides the oral testimony, the appellants also proved the copy of F.I.R. which was marked as Ext. A1, Final Report which was marked as Ext. A2, Inquest Report was marked as Ext. A3, Postmortem report of the dead body of the deceased was marked as Ext. A4 and the Original Journey Ticket of the deceased along with other co-passengers which was marked as Ext. A5. But the respondent neither examined any witness nor proved any document.

5. The Railway Claims Tribunal in the impugned judgment presumed that stretching the head through the door can alone be the reason for the hit and came to a conclusion that the death happened due to self-inflicted injury which is covered in exception (b) of section 124 A of the Railways Act and dismissed the claim application.

6. Mr. Basav Chatterjee, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal erred in not appreciating the evidence in the record in its proper perspective and also submitted that the findings of the Tribunal that the death happened due to self-inflicted injury is based on presumption. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the provisions for compensation in the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and it should receive a liberal and wider interpretation and not a narrow and technical one. In support of his contention learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Others reported in (2008) 9 SCC 527 , wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held in paragraphs- 8, 11 and 14 which read as under:-

8. "However, the evidence of DW 1, D. Sajjan, who was the Station Master at the railway station corroborates the evidence of PW 2. DW 1 had deposed that he saw one girl running towards the train and trying to enter the train and she fell down. He has further stated that the deceased Abja had attempted to board the train and fell down from the running train. For this reason, the Tribunal held that this was not an "untoward incident" within the meaning of the expression in section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 as it was not an accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying pas