The court established that a deceased passenger found on railway premises can qualify for compensation under strict liability provisions, even if discrepancies arise concerning ticket routes.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

The appeal is filed by the claimants questioning the order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench at Bengaluru in Claim Application No.OA (II U) SBC 0183 of 2017, thereby the claim application filed by the claimants is dismissed.

2. It is the case of claimants that on 06.04.2016 the deceased had been to Tirupathi stating that he would be returning after 2 days, but the deceased did not turn up even after lapse of 20 days. Therefore, the claimants approached the Udgir Police and the Udgir Police had shown the photographs of unknown body, which was traced by the Gadag Railway Police and advised the claimants to approach the Gadag Railway Police for further details. When the claimants approached Gadag Railway Police, they have shown the clothes and articles of the deceased, which were seized from the body of the deceased and by seeing the said photographs, clothes and articles seized from the body of the deceased, the claimants have identified the body of the unknown person is that of Devidas Kumbar i.e., husband of the claimant No.1. Further based on the journey ticket and clothes recovered from the body of the deceased shows that the deceased was bonafide passenger and while travelling from Tirupathi to Udgir, due to jerk and jolt accidentally had fallen down from the moving train and sustained fatal injuries. Thus, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot.

3. As per the Railway Police, the dead body was found on 09.04.2016 8 feet away from the track enroute Hombal and Balaganur. Therefore, the claimants have filed claim application seeking compensation, but the same is dismissed on the reason that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger since as per the journey ticket recovered the deceased was travelling from Tirupathi to Udgir, but the body is found on the track of Hombal and Balaganur, which is not the route of Tirupathi and Udgir. Therefore, upon this discrepancy the Railway Tribunal suspected the death of deceased due to railway accident. Therefore, for these reasons dismissed the claim application.

4. Heard arguments from both sides and perused the records.

5. It is the case of claimants that on 06.04.2016 the deceased had been to Tirupathi stating that he would be returning after 2 days, but deceased had not returned to the home even after 20 days. Therefore, the claimants approached Udgir Police and the police at Udgir Police Station had shown the photographs of unknown body, which was traced by the Gadag Railway Police and advised the claimants to approach Gadag Railway Police for further details. When the claimant approached the Gadag Railway Police, they have shown the clothes of deceased and articles seized from the body of the deceased and by seeing the said photographs, clothes and articles seized from the body of the deceased, the claimants identified that it is the husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimant Nos.2 to 4. Also the said police handed over the journey ticket, which is from Tirupathi to Udgir. Therefore, claimants filed a claim application seeking compensation, which came to be dismissed by the Tribunal.

6. Upon considering the evidence on record, as per DRM Report - Ex.R-1 the dead body was found on 09.04.2016 on the track enroute Hombal and Balaganur. In the DRM Report after making enquiry, it is concluded that the victim passenger had travelled from Tirupathi to Udgir via RU, GTL, GDG, HBL and BL with journey ticket No.C-85399453 dated 08.04.2016 - Tirupathi to Udgir route via RU, GTL, RC and VKB. Therefore, it is the DRM