The court emphasized that negligence of the passenger does not affect the liability of the Railways in cases of untoward incidents, and claimants are entitled to compensation.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal can be summarised as under :

On 29th January, 2014, by an unknown train, deceased Akash s/o. Vijayrao Thakur was travelling from Nagpur to Chandur Railway station in order to go to his home at Tiwsa. As the compartment of the train was overcrowded, the deceased was standing near the door of the compartment and while travelling, he fell down from the running train, due to sudden jerk near Borkhedi Railway Station in front of signal KM No.802/5. The deceased died on the spot. The deceased was travelling in the train with proper journey ticket purchased by his friend. Information was given by Loco Pilot to the Station Master, Borkhedi Railway Station. On his information, Spot Panchanama, Inquest Panchanama etc. were prepared. The body of deceased was cut into pieces. The appellants, the parents of deceased filed claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal praying to grant compensation.

3. The respondent filed its Written Statement. Learned Claims Tribunal framed issues. Appellant no.2 Vijay Uttamrao Thakur examined himself and witness Rahul Vijayrao Nagdevte. The respondent examined Dy. S.S. Borkhedi Railway Station Shri Pradip Dewaji Borkar. The Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the claim on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and there was no untoward incident, as claimed. Hence, this appeal.

4. Heard Ms Gayatri Diwe, learned Counsel holding for Mr. P.R. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the appellants. She has submitted that the evidence of witness Rahul Nagdevte shows that he was friend of deceased. The deceased had come to Nagpur. On 29th January, 2014, he along with the deceased went to Nagpur Railway Station. He himself purchased the journey ticket of deceased and handed over to him. Thereafter, he returned back. He has stated that the compartment in which the deceased was travelling was over-crowded. The deceased was standing in the door way of the coach. He came to know about the accident.

5. Mr. N.P. Lambat, learned Counsel vehemently argued that the Railway Claims Tribunal has minutely verified the documents and has come to proper conclusion that the deceased might have committed suicide. No journey ticket was found on the spot of incident. He was not a bona fide passenger. Learned Counsel has submitted that if the deceased would have fallen from the running train, he would have been thrown by the side of the track. He would not come under the wheel of train. Body was cut into pieces. This itself shows that he was ran over by train.

Therefore, it is not an untoward incident. In support of his submission, Mr. Lambat, learned Counsel has pointed out the following decisions :

(a). Kamrunnissa .vs. Union of India, Special Leave Petition (C) No.26625/2015.

(b). Umadevi wd/o. Kiran Yennam and Others .vs. Union of India, 2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 120.

(c). Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Smt.Dharambiri Devi and Others .vs. the Ministry of Railway and another, FAO No.357 of 2007, dt.13.3.2008,.

(d). Judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.666 of 2018, Bhuvaneshwar s/o. Bapurao Deulkar and another .vs. Union of India.

(e). Judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.137 of 2015, Smt. Sunita wd/o. Gyaneshwar Upase and Others .vs. Union of India, through the General Manager, Western Railway, Mumbai.

(f). Judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.324 of 2005, Smt. Manisha wd/o. Mukesh Jain and Others vs. Union of India, through the General Manager, South-East-Central Railway, Bilaspur (CG).

6. Ms Gayatri Diwe, learned Counsel has submitted that only because the body was found in two pieces, it cannot be inferred that it was suicide and not an untoward incident. Learned Counsel has further submitted that, as per evidence of witness Rahul Nagdevte, deceased was having journey ticket. The