The absence of a ticket does not negate a claim for compensation; claimants establish bona fide passenger status shifts the burden of proof to the Railways under Section 124A of the Railways Act.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

The appeal is filed by the applicants challenging the judgment dated 01.07.2016 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in OA II U 01/2012, thereby, the claim petition filed by the applicants for compensation is dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.05.2007 deceased came to Dombivalli Railway Station and boarded local train for going towards Byculla Railway Station to attend his regular duty and at about 06.40 hrs when the said local train reached between Dombivalli Railway and Diva Railway Station near K.M.No.47/10, due to heavy rush and push by other passengers in the compartment the deceased accidentally fell down from the train and sustained serious injuries to his head and other parts of the body and died on the spot. Therefore, legal heirs of the deceased filed an application claiming compensation.

-

3. Sri.Shanti Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent has vehemently opposed the grant of compensation contending that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.

4. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the reason that the photograph and signature found on the monthly pass is not tallied and picture is not correct. Therefore, only on this reason the claim petition is dismissed.

5. It is stated that the deceased was working as an Engineer in Mumbai and was holder of monthly pass so as to travel in the local train. On the fateful day i.e., on 14.05.2007 as usual the deceased came to Dombivalli Railway Station and boarded local train for going towards Byculla Railway Station to attend his regular duty and the deceased accidentally fell down from the train due to which the deceased died. Exs.A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A- 4(a) all prove the fact that the deceased had traveled in the train and accidentally fell from the train. Ex.A-4 is the original computerized season ticket, which is valid upto 03.06.2007. Ex.A-5 is the Death Certificate, which reads the names of applicant Nos.3 and 4 and place of death as Dombivalli. When this being the fact, AW1 being the wife of deceased has given evidence that the police have collected the monthly journey ticket pass, but the Tribunal has opined that only Nokia Mobile Set, Identity Card, ATM Card were collected, but Ex.A-4 is the local pass from the Thakurli CSTM, which prove the fact that the deceased was holding monthly pass to travel in the train at Mumbai. When this being the fact proved on record, the Tribunal is not correct in dismissing the claim petition by opining that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.

-

6. Further the DRM reports prove the fact that the deceased died due to railway accident. When this being the fact, the applicants have ably proved that the deceased was bonafide passenger and died in railway accident, they are entitled for compensation. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not correct.

-

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