S.K Sinha, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23rd March, 2009, in claim application number O.A 00199 of 2004 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, whereby the applicant's claim has been declined and the claim application has been dismissed.

2. The brief fact of the case as made out in the claim petition is to the effect that the applicant's husband namely, Arvind Kumar while travelling from Patna Junction to Parsa Bazar after purchasing the railway ticket boarded the train No. 599 UP (Patna-Gaya Passenger). The train was crowded, as such, the husband of the applicant was standing in the bogie near the gate, however, while the train was running below the Sipara Bridge (nearby Patna Junction) the train suddenly sustained a sudden jerk with the result the husband of the applicant fell down from the running train and died on the spot sustaining serious head injury. On account of the aforesaid untoward incident applicant filed claim application claiming compensation of rupees four lacs as provided under Part I to the Schedule of Rule 3 of the Railway Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules, 1990. The respondent-Railway resisted the claim on the ground that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger for having no railway ticket nor there is any eye witness to the incident. Moreso, as per the report of the Divisional Railway Manager the incident in question comes within the ambit of section 124(A)(C) of the Railway Act, 1989 which provides that no compensation is payable for the criminal act of the person concerned. The applicant adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of her claim, however, the Railway except for filing the written statement did not adduce any evidence oral or documentary. The Tribunal upon considering oral as well as documentary evidence produced on behalf of the applicant however came to the conclusion that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. The evidence of the applicant witness suffers from contradictions, and as such, they cannot be relied upon. Besides, the documents produced on behalf of the applicant also suffers from discrepancy in the date of the incident as in some of the documents the date of incident is mentioned as 10.11.2004 and in some other documents it is mentioned as 11.10.2004 as also the timing given in the memo of Assistant Station Master informing G.R.P Patna Junction vis-à-vis the time mentioned in the Inquest Report, and as such, on account of such discrepancy in the date and time the Tribunal did not accept the documents produced on behalf of the applicant in support of the claim. Accordingly, the claim application was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Tribunal while considering the case of applicant as also the evidence brought on record oral as well as documentary adopted an unreasonable approach for rejecting the claim of applicant on account of certain minor discrepancy in the oral as well as documentary evidence with respect to the date and time of incident. It is submitted that on basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record on behalf of the applicant the Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim instead of dismissing the same, moreso, in absence of any evidence adduced on behalf of the Railway either oral or documentary controverting those documents. It was further submitted that the applicant adduced evidence that the deceased had purchased the railway ticket, boarded the train who later fell down from the train and died on the spot. It was further submitted that the onus was on the part of the Railway to establish that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger falling down from the train relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kaushalya Devi v. Union of India, reported in 2008 (3) P.L.J.R 711 as also the decision in the case of Vijay Shankar Sharma v. Union of India, reported in 2011 (2) P.L.J.R 459. It was also submitted that the Tribunal ought to have adopted the liberal approach and not the narrow/technical approach while considering the claim as held by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijya Kumar, reported in 2008 (4) P.L.J.R 40(SC). The Tribunal taking a very narrow and technical approach rejected the evidence of the eye witness A.W.2 Sanjay Kumar (Exhibit-A/1) on the ground that in the post mortem report, Exhibit-A/6. The relationship of the said Sanjay Kumar is mentioned as brother-in-law whereas in his deposition he claimed himself to be not related with the deceased. The incident took place in his presence while he was purchasing some vegetables, as such, he was a witness to the inquest report. Learned counsel submits that the fact of purchasing the ordinary second class railway ticket, boarding the train in question, falling down from the train leading to his death on the spot was amply proved by the applicant by the oral as well as documentary evidence. There is no evidence on record controverting the evidence brought on record on behalf of the applicant. In the above circumstances, it is submitted that the claim application ought to have been allowed. Accordingly it is submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Railway submits that since the deceased was not a bonafide passenger for having no railway ticket and the incident comes within the ambit of section 124(A)(C) which talks about the incident on account of criminal act of the person concerned, as such, the applicant was not entitled to the claim as claimed. Moreso, there is no eye witness to the incident, and as such, the claim application was rightly dismissed disallowing the claim of the applicant.

5. Now, coming to the evidence on record, it is not in dispute that only the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant is on record as the Railway did not adduce any evidence in support of its pleading in the written statement, as such, the evidence of the applicant was only fell for consideration. On going through the evidence on record brought on behalf of the applicant, I find that the factum of incident, purchasing the railway ticket, boarding the train in question as also falling down of the deceased from the running train has been supported by the applicant witness (Exhibit-A/1), the inquest report (Exhibit-A/5), post mortem report (Exhibit-A/6), memo of the Assistant Station Master informing the G.R.P Patna Junction about the death of husband of the applicant (Exhibit-A/3), registration of U.D Case (Exhibit-A/4), death certificate (Exhibit-A/8), final report (Exhibit-A/7) submitted by the police are brought on record. In my opinion minor discrepancy in the documents with regard to the date of incident as somewhere it is mentioned as 10.11.2004 and somewhere it is mentioned as 11.10.2004 In the inquest report the time of such report is mentioned as 20:30 and the UD case was registered at 11PM, and as such, on this minor technical mistakes in the date, the fact of untoward incident, in which the husband of the applicant died due to falling down from the running train when the train sustained a severe jerk, the claim cannot be thrown out.

6. It is well settled in law that while dealing with such cases, the approach of the Tribunal or the Court should be liberal. The standard of proof required is not of a criminal trial. As such, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel, in the facts of the present case, are relevant. The evidence of A.W.2 Sanjay Kumar, who claims to be the eye witness since he was present near the spot below the Sipara Bridge while purchasing vegetables, was rejected merely on the ground that his relationship with the deceased was mentioned in the post mortem report as the Brother-in-law whereas in his deposition before the Tribunal he had said that he was not known to the deceased from before. The contention of learned counsel that on what basis/information the post-mortem report mentioned the relationship of the said Sanjay Kumar, A.W.2 is not on record nor he was cross-examined in this regard, as such, the very factum of witnessing the incident by the said Sanjay Kumar cannot be rejected, has substance. The Railway, on the other hand, did not adduce any evidence or brought any material on the record to substantiate its case that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as also did not brought anything on the record to the effect that the case in question is under the ambit of section 124(A)(C) of the Railway Act, 1989 which talks of the untoward incident occurring due to criminal act. What criminal act was committed by the deceased was not substantiated as the railway did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary, as noticed above. In my opinion, such opposition of the Railway to the claim cannot be sustained in law.

7. In view of the above discussions and upon considering the evidence on record as also the respective submissions of the parties, in my opinion, the impugned order under appeal cannot be sustained in law and the same is, accordingly, set aside. The claim of the applicant for a sum of rupees four lacs as provided under Part I to Schedule of Rule III of the Railway Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules, 1990 is allowed with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of payment. The aforesaid amount may be paid to the applicant-appellant within a period of three months on receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order.

8. The appeal accordingly stands allowed to extent indicated above.