JUDGMENT:- Heard learned Advocate Mr. P. S. Lambat at length. This is an appeal by Union of India through South-Central Railways challenging the Judgment and A ward passed by Railway Claims Tribunal on 18th October, 2002 in Claim Application No.90/0AII/RCT/ AGP/99.

2. One Rajesh son of Respondent Nos.1 and 2, and brother of Respondent No.3 died on 27th July, 1998. According to the claimants, said Rajesh had boarded the train No. 1604-Down Passenger at Nanded after buying a ticket for travelling to Aurangabad, and fell down from the door of the train due to jerk near Deulgaon Awchar Railway line which is near "Manwat Road Railway Station." He sustained grievous injuries, and remained lying there in the same injured and unconscious position.

3. On 28th July, 1998, Police Sub-Inspector Mr. Mule on getting report about the incident, shifted Rajesh to General Hospital, Parbhani, then to Guru Gobindsinghji Memorial Hospital, a Govt. Hospital, Nanded, where he died on 29th July, 1998.

4. The claimants filed the Claim Petition claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000-00 on account of death of Rajesh in the said untoward incident.

5. The claim Petition was opposed by Railways who denied that Rajesh was travelling in the said train, that he fell down, that he fell down due to the jerk, and alleging that the entire story of accident was fabricated. In was further pleaded that since no railway ticket was found on the person of the deceased, it was not a case of bona fide passenger, and prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition.

6. The respondents led evidence in support of the claim by filing medical papers, police papers which consisted of Inquest Panchanama, Accidental Death Report Station Diary entry, and affidavits of Respondent No.2 - Kailash, Subhash Lalpa Bodkhe, who was a fellow passenger and one Laxmikant Dattatray Sangewar, who too was a fellow passenger.

7. In the Written Submissions, emphasis was laid on the point that since witnesses of spot Panchanama, lodgment of FIR etc., were examined, the incident was not proved, and that there would be no presumption that the accident was caused due to untoward incident.

8. The Railway Claims Tribunal decided the case by Judgment and Order dated 18th October, 2002. Tribunal found that it was proved that deceased Rajesh had boarded the train after buying a ticket. Due to the fall from the train, he had suffered skull fracture. Tribunal further found that:

(i) it was recorded in the police papers that Rajesh had fallen from the train;

(ii) evidence of A W 2 corroborates the claimants' evidence;

(iii) the police papers were not disputed by the Railways;

(iv) Railways did not lead any oral evidence, or bring any other evidence.

In the result, the Tribunal found that the claimants had proved the case.

9. In this appeal, which was initially heard for admission, this Court had called for record, which is received.

10. Today, this Court has heard oral submissions of learned Advocate Mr. P. S. Lambat at length and perused the record.

11. Learned Advocate Mr. Lambat gave emphasis on following submissions :

(a) that, it was not proved that the doors of railway bogie were open;

(b) that, normally the trains ply with doors shut and with all care and caution that no untoward incident takes place;

(c) that, now-a-days, it is an ill-hatched practice that whenever any casualty of death occurs, people lodge claim against Railway establishment, and claim and receive the amount of compensation;

(d) since a valid ticket was not found with the passenger, the case that the deceased was a bona fide passenger is not proved;

(e) untoward incident is a question of fact, and it is not duly proved in present case;

and (f) it was not imperative for Railways to refute and rebut, whatsoever, of the police papers.

12. The submission of learned Advocate that now-a-days, it has become an ill-hatched practice that in case of any death, people lodge Claim Petitions against Railways is amazing, however, no such incidence is shown. Though such eventuality

Click Here to Read the rest of this document