The central legal point established in the judgment is that the actions of the deceased, as determined by the court, amounted to criminal negligence and self-inflicted injury, leading to the denial of the claim for compensation.

1. Heard.

2. Admit. Heard finally in terms of the order passed on 22nd February, 2017.

3. This appeal challenges the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 8.12.2015, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, in case No. OA(IIu)/NGP/2012/0298. By this judgment and order, a claim made by the respondent with South Central Railway Secunderabad for receiving compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12%, on account of death of the husband and father of appellant Nos.1 and 2 respectively in a railway accident resulting from an untoward incident was rejected. The accident had occurred at about 12.30 hours of 21.1.2012 at Railway Station Latur Road when the deceased Gautam had fallen off a running train bearing train No. 57548. It was the case of the appellants that deceased Gautam was a bona fide passenger holding a valid ticket to travel on the train and that he had fallen down from a running train, while it was the case of the respondent that the deceased was a hawker and that he had tried to board a running train when it had already gathered momentum and thus it was not a case of untoward incident but a case of criminal negligence as well as self inflicted injury.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is ample evidence available on record which would show that deceased Gautam was a bona fide passenger and he had fallen off a running train and not at the time when he was trying to board a running train which had gathered momentum. He, however, does not dispute the claim of the respondent that deceased Gautam was a hawker selling some eatables on train. But, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the hawker’s business was carried out by the deceased not at Latur Road Railway Station but at some different place.

5. Shri NP. Lambat, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the evidence available on record shows that the stand taken by the Railway has been duly proved and, therefore, there is no reason for making any interference with the impugned judgment and order.

6. In view of the argument advanced across the bar, following point arises for my determination:

Whether the deceased died in a railway accident on account of untoward incident?

7. The evidence available on record, on its perusal, does show that whatever has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent is having substance in it and there is no merit in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants.

8. Although, it is case of the appellants that the deceased had fallen off a running train while he was already travelling on board the train, the evidence of Shri Ramesh Kumar (RW1), Assistant Station Master, examined by respondent shows the case to be otherwise, he being an eye witness to the entire incident and, therefore, his evidence has assumed importance in the present case. This is not so with the evidence of two witnesses of the appellant, namely, AW 1 Pushpa and AW 2 Rasika as admittedly both of them were not eye witnesses to the incident.

9. While AW 1 Pushpa does not know anything about the incident or going of her deceased husband to Latur Road Railway Station for catching a train, AW 2 Rasika, sister in law of the deceased, knows something which is related to the occurrence of the incident, if not the incident proper. She states that she had been to Latur Road Railway Station in order to see off her deceased brother in law and that she had indeed purchased a railway ticket for her deceased brother in law in order to enable him to travel on a train for going to Udgir. In this regard, I do not see any difficulty in accepting the evidence of AW 2 Rasika as there is nothing in her entire evidence to entertain any doubt about her seeing off her deceased brother in law at Latur Road Railway Station and also purchasing a railway ticket for him. But, she also admits that so far as the occurrence of the accident was concerned, she was not aware of it and that her knowled