The absence of a ticket does not negate a claim for compensation, and an eyewitness substantiating travel can shift the burden of proof to the Railways under strict liability principles.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. This appeal is filed by the claimants being the parents of the deceased challenging the order dated 09.10.2018 passed in OA II U 056 of 2017 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru¹ thereby, the claim petition filed by the claimants is dismissed.

3. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased is their son and on 19.08.2016, the deceased in order to meet his friends at Bangarpet went to Bengaluru City Railway Station, purchased a journey ticket for his travel hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short and travelled from Bengaluru to Bangarpet by some unknown train. During the course of journey, he accidentally fell down from the moving train and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot.

4. Upon the claim petition filed by the claimants, the Tribunal dismissed the same on the reason that at the time of accident, in and around, there were several trains going towards Bengaluru-Chennai and the only train by which the deceased was alleged to have boarded would be train bearing No.22626-Double Decker, in which issuance of open ticket is not permissible and also the ticket to travel in the said Double Decker train is exorbitant one. Therefore, there were no chances that the deceased would have travelled in the said train. Hence, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger; thus dismissed the claim petition.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants submitted that admittedly, the deceased fell down from the moving train in the Railway Station and the eyewitness examined is an auto driver who deposed that the deceased fell down from the moving train and died and there is no contra evidence by the respondent/Railway. Hence, they are entitled to compensation.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Railway Authorities justified the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal.

7. Just because the journey ticket is not produced is not a ground to dismiss the claim petition. The claimants have deposed in the affidavit that the deceased by purchasing the journey ticket travelled is a prima facie evidence to consider that the deceased travelled along with journey ticket; then for rebuttal of the same, the respondent/Railway has not led evidence, but there is no rebuttal evidence. Further, an eyewitness is examined by the name Ramakrishna, who is an auto driver on the said location, has stated that after seeing the same and observing that the deceased had sustained fatal injuries and before informing to Ambulance (108), the deceased succumbed to the injuries. There is no contra evidence by the respondent/Railway Authorities for disbelieving eye witness.

8. Furthermore, the complaint, FIR, Inquest Panchanama and Post Mortem Report prove the fact that the deceased died in the railway accident. When this being the fact, the reasonings given by the Tribunal that since the deceased was travelling in the Double Decker train and the fare of the ticket is an exorbitant one, the only train by which the deceased had travelled is the said train. For all these reasons, in the presumptive observations, it is not disputed that the said Double Decker train had a stop at Bangarpet. When this being the fact proved and the death of the deceased in the railway station and the witness examined is an eyewitness as above stated therefore, the deceased found to be a b