Back
K. MANMADHA RAO
Jalem Lakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The present Appeal is preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 5/7/2019 passed in OA/II/u/140 of 2010 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, Guntur (for short "the Tribunal").
2. Heard Smt. N. S. Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Jupudi V. K. Yagnadutt appearing for the respondents.
3. The claim of appellant/applicant before the Tribunal is that the application has been filed by the appellant under Sec. 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act against the respondent Railway administration for payment of compensation for the death of her son as a result of an untoward incident. The claim of the appellant is that one Jalem Ramesh (hereinafter referred to "the deceased")went to Rajahmundry one day prior to the incident and stayed there on that night. During his return journey, the deceased along with brother-in-law K Venkata Ramana went to Rajahmundry Railway station in the morning hours of 6/4/2010 and his brother-in-law purchased one 2nd class train journey ticket for the deceased from Rajahmundry to Tuni and the deceased boarded train No.7487 Tirupati-Visakhapatnam Tirumala Exp. In a second class general compartme
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.
The absence of a train ticket does not negate the status of a deceased as a bona fide passenger under the Railways Act, as the burden of proof can shift based on circumstantial evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
