9. Ms. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the entire objective of the enactment being for the benefit of the bereaved families who have lost their near and dear ones in a train accident, the procedure to be followed has to be in sync with such objective. In other words, the procedure followed should not be hyper-technical and the strict rigours of the Evidence Act are not required to be adhered to. She further submits that the fact of there being a train journey ticket not being disputed which was also exhibited as Ext. “D” coupled with the fact that there is no dispute that the death of the deceased was in a train accident, the learned Tribunal has committed error in the aspect of holding that the train journey ticket was not properly proved. By drawing the attention of the Court to the order-sheets which are available in the LCRs, the learned counsel has submitted that numerous attempts were made to call the relevant police officer as an witness and in this regard, this Court has noticed that on 19.01.2017, an order was passed calling for the IO-one Shri Dharani Gayan. Thereafter, another order was passed for calling for the SI- Shri Satyander Shom as it was found that Shri Dharani Gayan had not investigated the case. As the Tribunal was informed that the aforesaid SI- Shri Satyandra Shom was transferred to Moriani GRP, on 08.06.2017, fresh summons were issued to the said IO Shri Satyander Shom. When the matter was listed on 13.07.2017, the learned Tribunal had observed that despite issuance of summons, the concerned SI was not present, and accordingly, the matter was directed to be listed for final hearing as photocopy of the case diary was placed on record.
