Under Section 124A of the Railways Act, compensation is grounded on strict liability for railway incidents, reaffirming that bona fide passengers are entitled to compensation despite negligence claims.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

The appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants questioning the order dated 20.09.2024 in Claim Application No.OA (II U)/SBC/0126/2016 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, thereby, the claim petition made by the claimants is dismissed.

2. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was a lorry driver by profession. On 27.02.2016 the deceased has boarded train No.56510 - Bangalore City -Marikuppam Passenger Train at Satellite Goods Terminal, Whitefield Halt Station, after purchasing the journey ticket. It is stated that he was possessing second class railway ticket bearing No.B-25787599 to travel between Whitefield and Marikuppam. But the claim petition filed by the claimants is dismissed.

3. The reasons assigned by the Tribunal are that the deceased was not the bonafide passenger and journey ticket recovered from the body of the deceased is under suspicious circumstances. The claimants are examined orally and filed the affidavit of evidence and produced the documentary evidence such as FIR, Memo issued by Station Manager, Satellite Goods Terminal, Whitefield Yard (SGWF) to Police Sub-Inspector, Government Railway Police, Bangalore Cantonment dated 27.02.2016, Message issued by Guard of Train No. 56510 to GRP, Bangalore Cantonment dated 27.02.2016, Inquest Panchanama, Post-mortem Report, AW-1's statement to the police dated 27.02.2016, Railway Journey Ticket bearing No.B-25787599 dated 27.02.2016 issued to travel from Whitefield to Marikuppam; and other dependency documents.

4. The Tribunal has suspected the evidence of wife of the deceased that she did not know as to where her husband was going. Therefore, only on this reason the Tribunal has formed opinion that the journey ticket recovered from the body of the deceased is under suspicious circumstances. This observation of the Tribunal is not correct for the reason that, just because, the wife of the deceased had deposed that she did not know as to where her husband was going is not the ground to dismiss the claim petition.

5. The documentary evidence placed by the claimants as above discussed proves the fact that the deceased died in an untoward incident in the railway station between Whitefield and Marikuppam Railway Station. Further the journey ticket is also recovered from the body of the deceased. Hence, when these are the facts proved that the death of the deceased is due to an untoward incident and also found that the journey ticket proves the fact that the deceased was the bonafide passenger, therefore, the appreciation of evidence made by the Tribunal is perverse and illegal one. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

6. 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 p