The court ruled that the deceased's claim for compensation under strict liability principles stands unless clear evidence of self-inflicted injury is presented, emphasizing the shifting burden of proof between claimants and railway authorities.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

The applicants, who are the wife and mother of the deceased, have filed this appeal questioning the order dated 18.01.2019 passed in OA II U 091/2016 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) thereby, the claim application filed by the applicants was dismissed on the reason that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and his death was not due to the Railway accident.

2. Heard arguments from both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

3. In order to prove the case, on behalf of appellants, appellant No.1-wife was examined as AW-1 and one Sri Ramesha was examined as AW-2 and Exs.A1 to A-17 were marked. The respondent did not lead oral evidence, but only submitted DRM’s investigation report marked as Ex.R-1.

4. It is the case of the claimants that the claimant No.1 is the wife and claimant No.2 is the mother of the deceased. The deceased died on 17.9.2015 after purchasing the journey ticket while traveling from Bangalore city to Davanagere, and due to heavy rush in the general compartment, the deceased was forced to travel standing or sitting near the doorway of the compartment. During the course of journey, he lost balance and fell down from the moving train, sustained severe injuries and thus the deceased died on the spot.

5. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim application on the reason that though the deceased was not found to be a bona fide passenger, but the place of untoward incident is suspicious one. The Tribunal has also assigned the reason that the Loco Pilot has not informed the nearby Station Master or Police regarding untoward incident.

6. Ex.R1 is the DRM report. The said report is a cyclostyled copy, and the respondent has not filed any rebuttal evidence to disprove the journey ticket found with the deceased. The contention of the applicants is that the journey ticket was recovered from the deceased. Thus the deceased was found to be a bona fide passenger. But the suspicion raised by the Tribunal does not have merit on the reason that just because, the Loco Pilot has not informed the nearby Station Master or police is not a ground to dismiss the claim petition. Admittedly, the dead body was found lying near Road-I track at KM No.87/600 at Nittur end at Gubbi Yard as per Exhibit-A2. Therefore, the claim petition ought not have been rejected by the Tribunal by suspecting the location only for the reason that the Loco Pilot has not informed the nearby Station Master or Police regarding the dead body lying near Road-I track. Therefore, the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition, and the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

7. 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 rail