could come to Police Station 2 to 3 weeks after the death to collect information but did not bother about the last rites of the deceased. The learned counsel for the respondent brought out discrepancies in various documents. Whereas as per application, the deceased died on 19.8.14, but the family came to police station to find out the details of accident on 6.9.14. but, in the cross-examination of AW-1, Shri Mohd Ismail, father of the deceased stated that he came to police station on 31.8.14. The father of the deceased is said to be 100 years old but as per election identity card he is only 70 years old and as per passport, he is 80 years old. Perhaps this is not material. The name of the daughter, applicant No. 3 was also not matching and amended later from Huma Bano to Huma Begum. AW-1 stated her name as Huma Bano in his evidence, but the name in the Aadhar Card (only photocopy, original not produced) is Huma Begum. This also may be discarded as not very material if all the discrepancy was with regard to the name, but she is shown as 33 years old as per the photocopy of Aadhar Card, but she is stated to be 17.6 years as per the application and certificates of ADM, exhibit A-5. The whereabouts of children of the deceased were stated to be not known, as per their uncle (Ex.A-3) In view of the facts brought out above, it is held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the case is not proved to be a fall from the train, as alleged in the claim application. Even the dependents are doubtful due to discrepancies in their names, ages etc. Both these issues are decided against the applicants.”
