By the Court.—Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Rajendra Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that one Anand Kumar Pandey, aged about 20 years, an agriculturist as well as student, was travelling in Train No. 3010 Dn Dehradun-Howrah express on 29.5.1999 after purchasing the second class ticket from Lucknow in order to reach Shahganj. When the train reached near railway station Rudauli, the deceased accidentally fell down from the train and sustained grievous injuries, as a result of which, he died at the spot. The mother of the deceased approached the Tribunal for payment of compensation under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act (in short ‘Act’).

3. Written statement was filed by the Railway with the plea that it is not a case of accidental fall. The plea was also taken by the Railway that the deceased jumped from the moving train and succumbed to injuries. The Tribunal framed the issues with regard to accident and payment of compensation. The Tribunal recorded the finding that it is a case of accidental death and on account of sudden jerk and jolt, the deceased fell down from the open gate of the train. The Tribunal has further recorded the finding that the deceased had purchased the ticket from Lucknow in the presence of Ram Shabad Pal in order to reach destination. Ram Shabad Pal had deposed before the Tribunal that the deceased had purchased the second class ticket. He was duly cross examined by the appellant-railway but according to Tribunal, no major contradiction comes out from his statement. The Tribunal further held that the mother of the deceased Smt. Shyma Pandey has deposed that when the train was running near Rudauli railway station, the deceased accidentally fell down as a result of sudden jerk and jolt of the train. A detailed account of the accident was given in the affidavit of the mother of the deceased. However, the Railway’s counsel has not cross-examined the witness Smt. Shyama Pandey and the affidavit filed by her is un-controverted. The testimony of Smt. Shyama Pandey has been corroborated by the affidavit of Ram Shabad Pal, in whose presence the ticket was purchased by the deceased.

4. While assailing the order in question, passed by the Tribunal, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Gateman, Mani Ram had found that the deceased was roaming in the vicinity and when the train came near the gate, he jumped over it and succumbed to injuries. Reliance has been placed on the statement of Gateman, Mani Ram. The statement of Mani Ram was alleged to be recorded by the inquiry officer, Station Superintendent of the Railway. However, no affidavit was filed by Mani Ram before the Tribunal nor he was produced as a witness to substantiate the defence. The Station Superintendent is alleged to have recorded the version of Sri Mani Ram. It is submitted that the inquiry report submitted by the Station Superintendent should have been believed by the Tribunal but the Tribunal failed to take note of it. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Section 191 of the Railways Act, 1989 by stating that the statement of Sri Mani Ram is admissible in evidence. Section 191 of the Railways Act is reproduced as under :

“191. Proof of entries in records and documents.—Entries made in the records or other documents of a railway administration shall be admitted in evidence in all proceedings by or against the railway administration, and all such entries may be proved either by the production of the records or other documents of the railway administration containing such entries or by the production of a copy of the entries certified by the officer having custody of the records or other documents under his signature and stating that it is a true copy of the original entries and that such original entries are contained in the records or other documents of the railw