The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of 'strict liability' and 'no fault liability' under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, and the need for a liberal and wider interpretation of the provision for compensation in the Act.

JUDGMENT

Prithviraj K. Chavan, J. - This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai on 28th February, 2018 in Claim Application No. OA(II u) /MCC/1133 of 2011 by which the Tribunal has dismissed the Claim Application filed by the appellants who are the dependants of one Suresh Gharat (for short 'deceased').

2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows;

On 29th September, 2011, one Suresh Gharat aged about 47 years, a painter by profession, was travelling by an unknown local train from C.S.T, Mumbai to Mulund on a strength of a valid second class railway ticket. When the overcrowded train reached between Nahur and Mulund Railway station near K.M. No.29/4-5, due to a sudden push by the passengers in the compartment, he fell down from the running train and died instantaneously due to serious head injury. He left behind his widow, applicant No.1- Jayashree and sons, applicants No.2 and 3 viz; Haresh and Krishna and mother, Janabai as dependants.

3. A claim application was filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking compensation. The Tribunal, after going through the evidence of A.W.1-Jayashree on affidavit and having considered the record of the respondent, arrived at a conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as he did not possess a valid railway ticket. Rather, he was a trespasser who was, in fact, knocked down by an unknown local train while crossing the railway track. In short, it is held that the deceased died due to his own negligence. As it was an offence, it does not cover within the term 'untoward incident' as defined in section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short 'Railways Act'). The Tribunal has, therefore, dismissed the application.

4. Dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the appellants have approached this Court.

5. I heard Mr. More, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Pandian, learned standing Counsel for the respondent.

6. In short, Mr. More would argue that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in disbelieving the evidence of A.W.1- Jayashree which remained un-controverted that the deceased fell down of a running train due to push by overcrowded passengers in the compartment between Mulund and Nahur Railway Station. He would argue that the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger is also erroneous in the sense that there is no evidence adduced by the respondent to indicate that they had either searched the surrounding area of the spot of the incident or tried to find out as to whether the ticket perhaps could have been lying somewhere near the spot. There was no eye witness indicating that the deceased was crossing the track. Neither the motorman nor any of the Police or Panch witnesses have been examined. It is also submitted that evidence of the Station Superintendent is hearsay.

7. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and order be set aside as it is against the settled principles of law.

8. Mr. Pandian, learned standing Counsel for the respondent, however, has supported the impugned judgment by contending that the Station Superintendent is well conversant with the area who had testified that spot of the accident has normally been witnessed as a point where people frequently cross the railway track.

9. Mr. Pandian has also drawn my attention to the fact that the deceased was a resident of Indira Nagar Zopadpatti which is abutting to Mulund Railway Station. Therefore, possibility of the deceased crossing the track at the relevant time cannot be totally ruled out.

10. Learned Standing Counsel thus, has supported the impugned judgment and order by stating that there is no reason to set aside the impugned judgment and award, inter alia, praying for dismissal of the appeal.

11. Affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of A.W.1-Jayashree, in sum and substance, indicates that on 29th September, 2011, the deceased was travelling with his friend namely As