The main legal point established is that the exceptions in Section 124A of the Railways Act must be strictly proven by the railway administration, and the provisions for compensation should receive a liberal and wider interpretation to serve their purpose.

JUDGMENT

Prithviraj K. Chavan, J. - This is an appeal challenging the judgment of dismissal of the Claim Application passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai on 30th November, 2017.

2. Facts in brief are as follows :-

3. On the fateful day of 30th April, 2010 deceased -Milind Balaram Sakpal (for short "deceased"), a bachelor of 30 years was travelling by a local train from Vile Parle to Borivali with a valid monthly season ticket. When the train was running between Km.23/8-9 near Jogeshwari station, due to heavy rush and push from the other passengers in the compartment, he accidentally fell down from the said train, sustained serious injuries and died subsequently.

4. The incident was reported to the Station Superintendent. According to the respondent, the deceased was a trespasser and while crossing railway track, he was knocked down by 395 Dn. local train. The body of the deceased was taken to the hospital for postmortem where he was declared brought dead. An inquest panchanama was drawn. Personal search of the deceased was taken during the inquest panchanama. Along with certain articles, such as mobile phone, wrist watch and wallet, the GRP also recovered a railway pass from the person of the deceased. However, according to the respondent, the same was not available as it was lost.

5. The parents of the deceased -appellants/claimants herein, have filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from the respondent on account of death of their son due to untoward incident occurred on 30th April, 2010. The Railway Claims Tribunal, however, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the application mainly by observing that the deceased was knocked down while crossing the railway track and, therefore, his death had occasioned due to his own negligence and criminal act, for which the Railway Administration is not responsible and, therefore, not liable to pay any compensation. The deceased had committed an offence under Section 147 of the Railway Act.

6. Heard Mr. Vasant More, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. T.J. Pandian, learned standing Counsel for the respondent.

7. At the outset, Mr. More would argue that the victim fell down from the running local train due to heavy rush and push from the other passengers in the compartment and, therefore, it was an untoward incident. Since, while travelling by local train, the deceased had a valid season ticket from Vile Parle to Borivali, which has been admitted by the respondent, there was no question of he crossing or trespassing the railway track at Jogeshwari station. It is also argued by Mr. More that the respondent had failed to discharge its burden of proving that the deceased died due to his own criminal act as provided in Section 124-A(c) of the Railways Act. It is submitted that respondent was not prevented from examining any of its witnesses, including the Motorman, Guard, GRP personnel or at least a witness on inquest, in order to substantiate it's case that it was not an untoward incident but own criminal act of the deceased. He assailed the judgment of the Tribunal on these counts, as according to him, the Tribunal has committed gross error as well as illegality by ignoring these vital aspects and reached an incorrect conclusion by dismissing the application claiming compensation.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Pandian, learned standing Counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment by contending that AW-1 Balaram S. Sakpal, father of the deceased and the claimant was not an eye-witness to the incident. There was no reason for the Tribunal to disbelieve the report filed by the DRM, inquest panchanama, charge-book and memo and the report of the GRP. As such, Mr. Pandian, has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

9. No doubt, there was not a single eye-witness to the incident, nevertheless, the affidavit of AW-1 Balaram Sakpal indicates that his son -deceased Milind was travelling from Vile Parle to Borivali on 30th April, 2010 by a local train in a IInd cl