Absence of a train ticket does not negate the status of a bona fide passenger, provided there is sufficient corroborative evidence to support the journey claim.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

The appellants/claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.10.2018 passed in claim application No.O.A II U.No.131/2015 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, thereby, the claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed on the reasons that the deceased was not bonafide passenger as ticket was not recovered from the body of the deceased.

2. It is the case of the claimants that on 27.05.2015 the deceased had purchased a journey ticket and travelled as a bonafide passenger from Mantralayam to Raichur in a superfast train and during the course of the journey, he accidentally fell down from train under the bridge of Thungabhadra river into flowing water at KM.NO.536/700-800 between Mantralayam road to Matamari (MTL). Therefore, the claimants being the wife and children of the deceased have filed the claim petition, but the claim petition was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the deceased after purchasing the journey ticket was travelling in a superfast train from Mantralayam to Raichur on 27.05.2005 and died due to railway accident. Ex.A1 is the certificate copy of FIR, wherein it was registered based on the message received by SMR/MALM, wherein it is stated that “on duty keyman Sri Birendra Kumar S/o Rajkishore Ram, Keyman, Gang No.4, MALM reported at 3.30 pm., that one male dead body aged about 40 years was found under the bridge at KM.No.536/700-800 between Mantralaym Road (MALM) to Matamari (MTL). Therefore, inquest mahazar was conducted on 28.05.2015 between 5.00 pm., to 7.00 pm., as per the DRM report. The dead body was found under the railway bridge of Thungabhadra river. Admittedly, the journey ticket was not recovered from the body of the deceased.

4. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that mobile phone and other things were recovered from the body of the deceased, but the journey ticket was not recovered. Therefore, it is submitted that the deceased was not the bonafide passenger. But upon considering the factual scenario and on the basis of the material on record i.e., complaint, FIR, inquest panchanama and statement of police and five sons and daughter of the deceased and depositions made on oath during the trial, it is evident that the body was found under the railway bridge crossing through the Thungabhadra river. In the absence of any contra evidence by the respondent - Railways, the death of the deceased on all its preponderance of probabilities is proved to be due to railway accident.

5. The claimants have deposed before the Tribunal that the deceased has purchased the journey ticket. Therefore, when the claimants have deposed on oath that the deceased had purchased the journey ticket that could be believed. Therefore, just because, the journey ticket was not recovered always cannot be said that the deceased was not the bonafide passenger. The deceased after falling down from the train, his bag might have been in the train and when he fell down under the railway bridge, the ticket might have been lost. These are the reasonable probabilities having lost the journey ticket could be ascertained. Therefore, on technical reasons dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal is not correct.

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 o