The claimants must prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and his death was caused in an untoward incident to be entitled to compensation under the Railways Act, 1989.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties.

2. The judgment and award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur (for short, “Tribunal”) in case No.OA(IIu)/NGP/249/2017 dated 04.06.2019 is under challenge in this appeal by the claimants as the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the claimants.

3. The facts giving rise to filing of the present appeal can be summarized as follows :

On 17.02.2017, the deceased Rushikesh alongwith Rajesh, Gajanan and Prafulla came at Nagpur from Hinganghat. All four of them were proceeding to Pachmarhi for ‘Mahadev Yatra’. Rajesh i.e., appellant No.2 purchased railway ticket from Nagpur to Amla and they boarded in Gorakhpur Express from Nagpur Railway station. Due to heavy rush on the platform, the deceased and his friends boarded in different bogies. During the journey, the deceased fell down from the running train at KM No. 1029/3 near Bharatwada Railway Station, however, as the companions of deceased were in a different bogies, they were not aware about the incident. On arriving at Amla Railway Station, the deceased was not found, but other three friends completed the Yatra and returned at Hinganghat. Subsequently, they came to know that deceased was found on a railway track at KM No. 1029/3. As per the contentions of the Claimants, as deceased died in an untoward incident while travelling as a passenger, the Claimants are entitled for the compensation.

4. In response to the notice, the respondent - Railway contested the claim on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. It is further contention of Railway that the death of the deceased is not caused in an untoward incident, but the deceased died due to his own negligence, therefore, the Claimants are not entitled to receive any compensation.

5. The learned Tribunal recorded the evidence of the Claimants as well as AW-2 Rajesh Gopal Chandekar vide Exh- A-78. In rebuttal, the respondent -Railway examined Shri Atul Kumar Shrivastava, Dy. Station Superintendent (Commercial) vide Exh-A-83. Besides oral evidence, the Claimant placed reliance on Merg Report, Spot Panchnama, Inquest Panchnama, whereas respondent - Railway placed reliance on DRM report Exh-A-30. After appreciating the evidence, the Tribunal held that Claimants failed to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died in an untoward incident and rejected the claim. The Tribunal further held that Claimant No. 2, though younger brother of the deceased, who has attained the age of majority, does not cover under the definition of dependant, and therefore, he is not entitled for any compensation.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, present appeal is preferred on the ground that the Tribunal had not considered the evidence on record and erroneously held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and erroneously rejected the claim. In fact, only burden on the Claimant is to show that the deceased died in an untoward incident. The Claimant had proved the death of the deceased in an untoward incident by adducing the evidence by way of affidavit which is supported by the Merg Report as well as the Spot Panchnama and Inquest Panchnama.

7. Heard learned Advocate Mrs H. S. Dhande for the appellant. She reiterated the contentions and submitted that the evidence on record shows that the deceased alongwith his brother as well as other friends was travelling in Gorakhpur Express on 17.02.2017. They all were proceeding to Pachmarhi. Due to the heavy rush in the train, they all boarded in a different coach. Therefore, they could not acknowledge the alleged incident. The railway ticket produced on record, verified by the Railway Administration is sufficient to show that deceased was a bona fide passenger. The said railway ticket was verified by the Railway Administration and found to be a genuine one. Thus, the Claimant has proved that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The dead body of the decease