The absence of a ticket does not negate the claim of a deceased as a bona fide passenger; once the claimants establish initial proof, the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut it.

JUDGMENT :

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J.

1. The unsuccessful claimants filed present appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act”), assailing the order, dated 08.06.2017, passed in Claim Application No. OAA No.192 of 2010 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench (for short, “the Tribunal”), rejecting their claim for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest for a case of death.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts relating to the present appeal in a nutshell are as follows:

(a) The claimants two in number, who are father and mother of deceased S. Nagaraju, preferred claim under Section 16 of the Act seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest. Their unmarried son met with untoward incident of accident of fall from train on 06.12.2009 at Lingampally Railway Station. He stated to have come to the said Station along with his brother, after purchasing platform ticket and got boarded his brother in train No.2748 – Palanadu Express on platform No.5, before the train started to move, he deboarded onto platform, in the process, he accidentally slipped and fell down and thereby the train moved off over him, resultantly, he died on spot. The deadbody was later noticed by Keyman, who reported the same to Station Superintendent, who in turn, reported the same to Government Railway Police (“G.R.P.”), accordingly, crime was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C.

(b) The respondent Railways filed written statement denying the manner in which incident happened and that the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(c) or Section 124-A of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. It is further denied that the deceased possessed any documentary proof to show that he had platform ticket, inasmuch as even the inquest report also did not mention that the deceased possessed platform ticket at the time of death, though certain other articles were found. It was further denied that even brother of deceased, who travelled by Palanadu Express on that day, did not produce any ticket, therefore, the assertion that both deceased and his brother came to Lingampally railway station on the said day was clearly untrue and false. Further, it is also stated that while train departed from station at 14.20 hours, the deadbody came to be noticed only at 16.30 hours, which is more than two hours, therefore, it was unbelievable no one has noticed lying of a deadbody for such a longer period, therefore, the occurrence of accident was not on account of slip and fall during deboarding of Palanadu express.

(d) Based on the aforesaid pleadings available on record, the Tribunal has framed following issues:

“1. Whether the application is maintainable?

2. Whether the applicants are dependants of the deceased?

3. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question?

4. Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident?

5. Whether the applicants are entitled to the compensation as claimed by them in the application?

6. To what relief?”

(e) In support of the claim, father of deceased was examined as AW.1 and brother as AW.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of Railways, Keyman was examined as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 Divisional Railway Manager Report.

(f) Issues 3 and 4 came to be first dealt with by Tribunal, which essentially related to whether deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question and that he died as a result of untoward incident. Considering the evidence adduced by claimants and also the railways, ultimately, the Tribu