Discrepancies in documentation of age do not invalidate a claim for compensation under the Railways Act, and strict liability applies unless the act constitutes self-inflicted injury.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

1. The claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.09.2014 passed in claim application No.O.A II U 100/2012 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, thereby the claim petition filed by the claimants was rejected.

2. The claimants being parents of the deceased have stated in the claim application that on 31.03.2012 in the night, the deceased by name S.N.Nanda Kumar along with his cousin brother by name Amaresh had been to Raichur Railway Station and purchased one combined journey ticket for both of them from Raichur to Yeswanthapur and after sometime boarded into Train No.17308 Bagalkot/Yesvanthapur express into a general compartment. When the said train after crossing Dharmavaram Station, the deceased had been to the toilets and while he was washing his hands at the wash basin due to the speed and jerks of the train, he had accidentally slipped and fallen down from the train between Dharmavaram/Nagasamudram Railway Stations on 31.03.2012 in the early hours and by sustaining fatal injuries, he died on the spot.

3. The claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed on the reason that the age of the deceased at the time of the accident is established as 8 years, but whereas on the record, the age of the deceased is 8 to 20 years in different papers. Therefore, the Tribunal had doubted that the very same person died in the accident. Further assigned the reason that there is discrepancy in mentioning as to when the accident occurred whether it is day time or night time and for these reasons, the claim petition is dismissed.

4. The documentary evidence such as complaint, FIR, post mortem report, inquest panchanama and statement of witnesses have the proved fact that the deceased was 8 years old who died in the accident. There may be some discrepancies in mentioning the age of the deceased as 8 to 20 years, but this discrepancy shall not be exaggerated so as to reject the claim petition.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Doli Rani Saha Vs. Union of India , (2024) 9 SCC 656 in paragraph No.13 has held as under:

"13. From the recapitulation of the various judicial pronouncements leading to the present appeal, it can be seen that the primary issue is whether the deceased was travelling on the train in question. In Rina Deva (supra), a two-Judge Bench of this Court considered the question of the party on which the burden of proof will lie in cases where the body of the deceased is found on railway premises. This Court held that the initial burden would be on the claimant, which could be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts. Once the claimant did so, the burden would then shift to the Railways. Significantly, it also held that the mere absence of a ticket would not negate the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The relevant extract from the ruling of the Court is reproduced below:

"29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that the injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly."

6. The judgment of this Court in the case of Mahaboob Sab & Another Vs. Union of Ind