Tribunal may direct the parties to give evidence, if any, by affidavit, and under Rule 15-C of the said 1989 Rules, the document filed by the applicants is required to be marked as “A” series and the documents filed by the respondent is required to be marked as “R” series and the Tribunal Exhibits are required to be marked as “C” series. As per Rule 22-A of the said 1989 Rules, documents not tendered with the evidence, do not form a part of the record. Therefore, with the scope of the said 1989 Rules read with the definition of ‘evidence’ as provided in the Evidence Act lead to an inevitable conclusion that only those statements or documents which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses fall with the definition of the ‘evidence’ with that view of the relevant legal provisions, the records called for the Railways Claim Tribunal has been perused. The records reveal that the Railways did not lead any evidence to prove any of the documents relied upon by them. Therefore, it prima facie appears that the Railways did not produce any evidence by examination any witness in support of their defence. Therefore, by operation of Rule 15-C of the said 1989 Procedure Rules, documents which are not proved, would stand excluded from the record. Therefore, without there being a formal order by the learned Tribunal, to accept any documents filed by the Railways to be marked as exhibits, the alleged report by the DRM could not have been recorded to be Exhibit R-1 in the impugned judgment. Moreover, on perusal of the LCR, as received from the learned Tribunal, the alleged Report by DRM is not found on record. Rather, there is a report on record dated 08/03/2011 which is by the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner/RPF which appears to be addressed to the DRM/RNY, wherein it was opined that it was a case of suicide. However, neither, the said officer nor any of the passengers who saw the deceased running to coach no. 6 and seen him jumping from there has been examined.
