The main legal point established is the requirement for medical or scientific evidence to prove intoxication and the necessity of a scientific investigation to determine the influence of alcohol in cases involving railway accidents.

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal is against the Judgment of Railway Claims Tribunal in Claim Application No.OA(IIu)/ NGP/2015/0152. On 17/05/2014, the appellant was travelling from Warora to Wardha by Balharshah Passenger to come to Wardha. There was heavy crowd in the boggy. He was sitting in a door when the said train reached Bhugaon Railway Station, driver of the railway applied immediate break and therefore, due to jerk, he fell down, he came under the running train. His both legs were cut off. One leg above the knee and one leg below knee were amputed.

2. The appellant filed claim petition stating that he was a bonafide passenger and untoward incident took place as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. Therefore, he is entitled for compensation. Railway Claims Tribunal recorded its finding that the appellant was not a bonafide passenger because be was not having any journey ticket. The Railway Claims Tribunal recorded its finding that the appellant was under the influence of liquor, accident took place due to his own fault and therefore, Railway is not liable to pay any compensation as it is covered by the Exception 124-A(d) of the Railways Act. Hence, this appeal.

3. Heard Ms. Hemlata Dhande, learned counsel for the appellant. She has pointed out spot panchnama and submitted that the appellant was travelling by Balharshah Passenger. He was having ticket to travel the said train but during the accident, the ticket might have been lost and therefore, ticket was not found with the appellant.

4. The learned counsel has submitted that this cannot be a ground to reject the claim of the appellant. In support of her submission, she has pointed out the decision of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vrs. Rina Devi, reported in II (2018) ACC 591 (SC).

5. Ms. Dhande, learned counsel has submitted that there is no any evidence to prove that the appellant was in heavy intoxication and therefore, he could not control himself. There was no any blood test report by the Chemical Analyzer. In support of her submission, she pointed out decision in the case of Chandru Vrs. Multi Speciality Lab Services Pvt. Ltd. and others (Madras High Court), in C.M.A. No. 1348/2018 decided on 04/03/2019.

6. She has also pointed out the Judgment of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of Sujata Vrs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance, decided on 09/03/2015.

7. Shri Lambat, learned counsel has pointed out Exception to Section 124-A(d) of the Railways Act. He has pointed out the evidence of Doctor examined before the Railway Claims Tribunal. The learned counsel has submitted that as per the evidence of Doctor, appellant was under the influence of liquor. Railway has proved defence as carved out under Section 124-A proviso (d) of the Railways Act.

8. Shri Lambat, learned counsel has submitted that the appellant was not a bonafide passenger. He himself fell down from running train and sustained injury due to heavy intoxication and therefore, claim of the appellant is rightly rejected by the Railway Claims Tribunal.

9. The Railway Claims Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellant on two grounds.

I) The appellant was not a bonafide passenger.

II) The appellant sustained injury as he was under the influence of liquor.

10. In respect of bonafide passenger, there is no dispute that railway ticket was not found with the appellant but that cannot be a ground to reject the claim of the appellant. The Honble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vrs. Rina Devi in para 17.4 has held as under :-

''The mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be a conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bonafide passenger for which the claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bonafide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relev