S.K Sinha, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order/Award dated 16th December, 2008, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in claim application number O.A 00086 of 2004, filed by the applicants-appellants claiming compensation of rupees four lacs for the death of the husband of the appellant no. 1 on account his falling down from the Train No. 519 UP at Bettiah railway platform while travelling from Bettiah to Narkatiyaganj. The Tribunal dismissed the claim application primarily for having certain discrepancy in the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the applicants as also for want of some more documents like first information report, inquest report, post-mortem report, final report etc.

2. The brief fact of the case as made out in the claim application is to the effect that the applicants-appellants herein, are the wife and sons of one Birendra Baitha, who fell down from the train soon after boarding the train while travelling from Bettiah to Narkatiyaganj by Train No. 519 UP on 23rd June, 2003 and got himself in between the train and platform resulting in the amputation of his leg later in course of treatment succumbed to the injury on the same date. The aforesaid accident claim application was filed on 28 June, 2004 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal on considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that there is serious discrepancy in the age of the sons of the deceased as also in the evidence of A.W 2, who happens to be the brother-in-law of the deceased with respect to the purchase of train ticket for travel of the deceased from Bettiah to Narkatiyaganj besides as to whether he was an eye witness to the incident. The Tribunal for such discrepancy dismissed the claim of the appellants.

3. Mr. Abinash Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the approach of the Tribunal in considering the evidence on record was not correct and justified in law inasmuch as while rejecting the claim the Tribunal did not give due weightage to the documentary evidences produced by the appellants which were the official documents of the Railway/Police and were sufficient to establish the factum of accident, getting the Sanha lodged by the Assistant Station Master Bettiah, sending the injured through Constable by G.R.P Bettiah and also medical treatment given to the injured at M.J.K Sadar Hospital, Bettiah followed by the issuance of death certificate vide exhibits A/2, A/3, A/4 & A/7. It is further submitted that the Tribunal while rejecting the claim of the appellants gave undue emphasis on the so called discrepancy in the age of the minor sons of the deceased in the light of the dependency certificate (Exhibit-A/8) even though there is no such material discrepancy. Moreover, it is submitted that small discrepancy in the age of the minors has no relevance to the fact whether husband of the appellant no. 1 fell down from the train and sustained injury which led to his death. It is accordingly submitted that the order/Award under appeal deserves to be set aside and the claim of the appellants be allowed as claimed.

4. Mr. Anil Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Railway authorities submits that in order to sustain the claim the appellants ought to have produced the relevant documents in order to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Secondly, it was submitted that the evidence of the applicant witness no. 2, Chandra Bhushan Singh on the point that he was an eye witness to the accident and had taken the deceased to the hospital as also the timing of arrival and departure of the train is not correct in view of the document exhibit-R/1 whereby the correct timing of arrival and departure of the train was mentioned since in the memo of Assistant Station Master, Bettiah (exhibit A/3) the arrival time of the said train was given as 18:45. Learned counsel further submits that the applicants-appellants herein in order to sustain the claim ought to have filed some more documents like the first information report, post-mortem report, inquest report, final report etc. as the evidence of applicant witness no. 2 Chandra Bhushan Singh was not safe to be relied upon. Learned counsel accordingly supports the order under appeal and submits that the above appeal be dismissed.

5. Now, upon considering the rival submissions of the parties and the evidence on record, it would appear that the applicants-appellants herein of the aforesaid claim petition in order to establish their claim adduced the oral evidence of the brother-in-law of the deceased namely, Chandra Bhushan Singh (A.W 2) who had deposed to the effect that he was accompanying the deceased at the Bettiah Railway Station, purchased the ticket for the deceased for travelling from Bettiah to Narkatiyaganj and in his presence the deceased had boarded the train and soon thereafter he fell down from the train in question on account of he being pushed out of the train by the passengers in the bogie who were hurriedly trying to get down from the train. The appellants, besides the oral evidence, filed the Affidavit of the applicant no. 1 i.e the widow of the deceased as also of A.W-2, the evidence of A.W-1 her affidavit i.e Exhibit-A are upon hearing about the incident from Chandra Bhushan Singh (A.W-2) and as such her evidence as also affidavit may not be of much help. Besides the affidavit and evidence of A.W-1 & 2, the applicants had brought on the record the Memo of Assistant Station Master, Bettiah to the G.R.P Bettiah for getting the Sanha recorded with respect to the said incident in which the deceased had sustained injuries on account of his falling down from the train i.e Train No. 519 UP (Exhibit-A/3). On receipt of such memo from the Assistant Station Master, Bettiah, the G.R.P Bettiah registered Sanha No. 419 of 2003 on the same date i.e 23 June, 2003 vide Exhibit-A/3. Immediately thereafter on the same date the G.R.P through its Constable Kumar Murlidhar sent the injured to the M.J.K Sadar Hospital, Bettiah as also vide memo of the P.P Rail, Bettiah for treatment and injury report vide Exhibit-A/2. The hospital on giving few treatments issued Referral Ticket (Exhibit-A/4) stating the injuries sustained by the injured namely Birendra Baitha, the husband of the applicant no. 1 (appellant no. 1 herein) vide Exhibit-A/4. The injured on account of such injury died on the same date while proceeding to Patna Medical College & Hospital (P.M.C.H) for better treatment. A Death Certificate dated 30 June, 2003 (Exhibit-A/7) was issued mentioning the date of death as 23 June, 2003. With respect to the dependency of the applicants-appellants herein, a dependency certificate is issued by the Nagar Parishad, Narkatiyaganj vide Exhibit-A/8 mentioning therein that the deceased died leaving behind two minor sons namely, Raja Babu & Aman aged about 6 years and 4 years respectively.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that notwithstanding that although some more documents could have been filed, but nonetheless on basis of the materials available on record, the claim of the applicants-appellants herein could not have been dismissed.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Railways submits that besides the evidence on record the applicants-appellants herein ought to have adduced further evidence oral as well as documentary including the train ticket about which it was however explained that the deceased lost the train ticket during such accident. However, learned counsel is not in position to say anything with respect to injury, memo of P.P Rail, Bettiah (Exhibit-A/2), memo of Assistant Station Master, Bettiah for getting the Sanha lodged (Exhibit-A/3), the referral ticket issued by the Hospital (Exhibit-A/4) and the death certificate (Exhibit-A/7). He however submits that in the dependency certificate (Exhibit-A/8) there appears to be certain discrepancy in the age of the minors.

8. In my opinion, the discrepancy in the age of the minors may not be of relevance with respect to the factum of accident, the injury sustained by the deceased, death of the injured due to such accident who happens to be husband and father of the applicants-appellants herein.

9. Upon considering the materials, as discussed above, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal was not correct and justified in law in rejecting the claim of the applicants-appellants herein. From the materials available on record i.e the factum of travelling of the deceased, sustaining the injury on account of the accident, recording of Sanha by the Police on the memo of the Assistant Station Master, medical treatment given to the injured vide Exhibit-A/4 and finally the death certificate (Exhibit-A/7) as also the dependency certificate (Exhibit-A/8), the applicants-appellants herein were entitled to the claim. The impugned Award dated 16 December, 2008, passed in claim application number O.A 00086 of 2004 is accordingly set aside. Now as regards the quantum of compensation, as per the Schedule appended to the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 Part I for payment of compensation in respect of death, the claimants are jointly entitled to the compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- (rupees four lacs) on account of the death of the deceased as aforesaid, who happens to be the husband of appellant no. 1 and father of the appellant nos. 2 & 3 with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e O.A 00086 of 2004 till the date of payment. The respondents are directed to pay the above amount to the appellant no. 1, the widow of the deceased, within a period of three month on receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order.

10. The appeal accordingly stands allowed to the above extended.