रल॓ दावा अ(cid:8)धकरण, कोलकाता (cid:14)यायपीठ BEFORE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCH Present: Shri Sanjay Singh Gehlot, Hon’ble Vice-Chairman Claim Application No. OA(IIU)/KOL/2018/0013 (Application filed on 15.01.2018 & decided on 05.11.2023)

1) Gopa Das, wife of the deceased Amal Das

2) Abheek Das, son of the deceased Amal Das Residing at :

2/51, Jatin Das Nagar, Block- 2, Kamarhati, Belghoria, Dist. North 24 Pgns.

Kolkata – 700 056 …… Applicants.

-VS-

Union of India represented through The General Manager, Eastern Railway ……… Respondent.

Application under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of Railways Act, 1989.

Claim for Rs.8,00,000/- with interest and costs Shri R. N. Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel for the applicant.

Smt. P. Verma, Ld. Counsel for the respondent (cid:19)नणय(cid:21)

J U D G E M E N T:

1. This is an application under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 filed by the applicant for herself and also on behalf of her son as dependants claiming compensation on account of the death of her husband Amal Das allegedly in an untoward train incident of accidental falling from a train. It is pleaded in the claim application that on 21.05.2017 the deceased Amal Das was travelling from Belghoria to BBD Contd…2 Bag by a train. The train was overcrowded and so he was standing near the door of the compartment. When the train left Belghoria, he dashed with a KM post no.9/31, sustained grievous injury and fell down from the train between Belghoria and Dum Dum. He died at the spot.

2. The respondent railway has filed a Written Statement disputing and denying the averments made in the claim application. It was stated therein that the victim was knocked down by a train while trespassing the railway track. The deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Recovery of the ticket from the deceased’s possession was disputed.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

1. Was the victim a bona fide passenger having a valid railway ticket for his journey, as claimed?

2. Whether the victim died in an untoward incident as defined U/S

123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989?

3. Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased and are entitled to get compensation as per the provisions of ‘untoward incident’, as prayed for?

4. To what other relief, if any, is the applicant entitled?

4. The applicant filed her affidavit of evidence and she was cross- examined as AW/1. The applicant filed the following documents, which were marked Exhibits :-

1. Certified copy of ticket - A/1 2. Certified copy of surathal report - A/2 3. Railway memo - A/3 4. P.M. report - A/4 5. Aadhar card of Gopa Das - A/5 6. Aadhar card of Abheek Das - A/6

7. Death certificate of Amal Das - A/7 Contd…3 On the other hand, the respondent railway filed DRM/SDAH’s report along with annexures which were marked Exht.R/1 collectively.

5. Ld. Counsels for the rival parties submitted their respective oral arguments. After appreciating the arguments and perusing the record, I determine the issues as under :-

Issue No. 2

6. For proper adjudication of the case, this issue is taken up first.

6.1 In her affidavit of evidence, the applicant reiterated the facts of the alleged incident as narrated in the claim application. In the affidavit, the applicant mentioned the name of one co-passenger of her deceased husband, namely Ganesh. A co-passenger is the best possible witness to unearth the truth. However the applicant failed to produce the alleged co- passenger of the deceased in the court. Hence as per section 114 (g ) of the Evidence Act an adverse inference can be drawn against the applicant as the truth remains hidden.

In her cross-examination, the applicant(AW/1) deposed that she was not an eye-witness to the incident and she was not with her husband at the time of incident. GRP informed her about the incident on 21.05.17 at about 1 p.m. Ev