The burden of proof lies on the Railway Administration to establish the deceased's status as a bona fide passenger, and the absence of a ticket does not necessarily negate this claim.

JUDGMENT :

The present Appeal is preferred by the appellants aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.11.2019 passed in OA/II/u/308 of 2011 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravti Bench, Guntur (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. Heard Smt. N.S. Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The claim of appellants/applicants before the Tribunal is that the application has been filed by the appellants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124A and 125 of Indian Railways Act 1989 against the respondent Railway administration claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest from the date of accident and costs for the death of Sri G. Srikanth (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”)in an alleged untoward incident that occurred on 24.07.2011. The claim of the appellants is that on 24.7.2011, the deceased who was working as a Painter had gone to Tenali and from there he was accompanied by his mason Shaik Mastan Vali to Guntur. After completion of his work at Guntur, he purchased 2nd class train journey ticket from Guntur to Repalel for himself and his mason and boarded the general compartment of Train No.77222 Guntur-repalle Passenger. While the train was arriving at Tenali Railway station, as there was a heavy rush of passengers in the compartment, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train in between the platform and the train. As a result of which, the deceased sustained severe multiple crush, severe injuries and died on the spot at about 08.35 hrs., on 24.7.2011 and the said train ticket was lost in the said accident.

4. The respondent filed its written statement and denied all the allegations made in the claim application and stated that, in the Statutory Inquiry report, known as DRM report, it was concluded that there was no eye witness to the incident of falling down from the running train as alleged and that the ticket recovered during the inquest does not pertain to the journey during which the incident happened, which indicates the deceased was unauthorized and hence the Railway administration was not liable to pay compensation.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues :

(i) Whether the applicant(s) is/are dependant(s) of the deceased?

(ii) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question and died as a result of an untoward incident?

(iii) Whether the applicant(s) is/are entitled to the compensation as claimed and to what relief?

6. During course of the trial, the appellant No.1/applicant No.1 was examined as AW.1 and the co-passenger Shaik Mastan Vali was examined as AW.2. AW.1 was not an eye witness to the incident whereas A.W.2 was an eye witness to the incidents. The applicants have relied upon certified copies of FIR, Inquest Report, Post Mortem Certificate, Bank passbook of the joint SB account held by the applicants, copy of Ration Card of the applicants and Original copies of Death Certificate & Family Member Certificate. The respondent Railway administration has relied on statutory investigation report containing several documents in evidence.

7. Basing on the facts and circumstances, attending circumstances and preponderance of evidence on record, the Tribunal has dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came to be filed.

8. On hearing, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment of Tribunal is contrary to law and contrary to facts of the case and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. She further submits that the Tribunal has shown narrow minded approach, while adjudicating the case. She further submits that the Tribunal grossly erred in holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the death of the deceased was not due to an untoward incident. The Tribunal adopted a very narrow approach in this matter. The act is beneficial p