AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. P. Routray, J
The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Heard Ms.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Appellant and Ms.Patra, learned CGC for the Respondent.
Present appeal by the Claimants is directed against impugned judgment dated 24th March, 2014 of Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. No. 67 of 2004, wherein the learned Tribunal has refused to grant any compensation by disbelieving the case of the Claimants.
The Claimants case is that the deceased while travelling in Falaknama Express Train No.2704 on 6th March, 2004 fell down at Chhatrapur Court Halt from the running train, and pushed to the adjacent track and was run over by another train i.e. Vishakha Express Train No. 7015.
On the other hand, as per railways the deceased was run over by Vishakha Express while trespassing the track at this point.
As per the case of both parties, no dispute is seen regarding run over of the deceased by Vishakha Express at the relevant time at Chhatrapur Court Halt. The only point remains to be decided is that, whether she accidentally fell down from Falknama Express and was run over by Vishakha Express or she was trespassing railway track ?
Two witnesses each from either side were examined in support of their respective contentions. A.W.2 is the eye witness examined from the side of the Claimants and R.W.1 is the eye witness examined form the side of the Railways.
First coming to the evidence of A.W.2, he has stated that he saw the deceased falling from running Falknama Express and dragged to the adjacent track and was run over by Vishakha Express. The situations narrated by A.W.2 is that while he was passing level crossing at Chhatrapur Court Halt he was cut in the space between the up and down track and saw both express trains crossing each other while the deceased fell down and was run over. The narrations given by A.W.2 seem inconceivable because of the circumstances he narrated as an eye witness of the accident. He was not an witness examined in the police case and secondly, it is very unnatural on the part of a man to remain in the space between two tracks at the level crossing point and that too watch the incident.
On the other hand, R.W.1 is the Section Engineer who said that he was on inspection duty in Vishakha Train No. 7015 on that day. He saw the deceased trespassing from east to west at this point in front of the train despite long whistle blow by the driver of the train. His movement in the train is noted in the railway records. As per the report of the driver of the train as well as guard of the train the run over of the deceased by Vishakha Express has been recorded.
Therefore, on comparison of evidences of A.W.2 and R.W.1, coupled with other circumstances and materials brought on record, the evidence of R.W.1 is found more trustworthy and probable. The evidence of A.W.2 is disbelieved for those reasons stated above including the fact that neither any journey ticket was recovered from possession of the deceased nor the same was produced or confirmed on verification.
In view of the discussions made above, I do not see any merit to interfere with the impugned award and the same is confirmed.
The appeal is dismissed.
……………………………..