The main legal principle established is the importance of establishing a person as a bona fide passenger and the need for a liberal interpretation of welfare statutes to ensure compensation for victims of train accidents.

JUDGMENT

URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. - Present appeal has been filed by the original claimants challenging the judgment and award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in Claim application OA (IIu)/NGP/12/2019 dtd. 7/2/2020, whereby the claim for compensation filed by the present appellants came to be dismissed (parties are referred as per their nomenclature before the Tribunal).

2. Present claimants (appellants) are the parents of deceased Akash Vijay Barde, aged about 22 years, who had filed the petition for compensation on account of death of Akash in an untoward incident alleged to have occurred on 17/4/2018 when deceased Akash was travelling by train bearing No. 12132 Pune - Nagpur Express with valid ticket. When the train reached near Belapur Railway Station deceased Akash left the seat to attend the nature's call and was standing at the entrance of bogie after attending nature's call was pushed. Hence, he fallen on the railway track and sustained injuries. As per the contention of the claimants deceased accidentally fell down and sustained injuries and died on the spot. As the death of the deceased is caused while boarding in the train, the claimants claimed compensation.

3. The respondent-Railway contested the claim on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and death of the deceased is not caused in an untoward incident. It is further contention of the Railway that the statement given by the cousin sister and her evidence is contradictory which shows facts are manipulated by the claimants. The statements given by the claimants and the witnesses before the Investigating Agency are not trustworthy and, therefore, Railway is not liable to pay compensation.

4. Taking into consideration the rival contentions, parties have led oral as well as documentary evidence. After hearing both sides the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that deceased Akash was not a bona fide passenger of the train on the relevant day and so also it was held that applicants have failed to prove that Akash died in an untoward incident. Therefore, claim application was dismissed. Hence, this present appeal.

5. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Sumesha Chaudhari for the appellants so also learned Advocate Ms. Neerja Choubey for the respondent. After hearing both the sides following points arise for my consideration:

(i) Whether appellant proves that death of deceased Akash is caused in untoward incident?

(ii) Whether deceased was 'bona fide passenger'?

(iii) Whether judgment and award calls for any interference?

6. Learned Advocate Ms. Sumesha Chaudhari vehemently submitted that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The applicants have led evidence by examining the cousin sister of the deceased who was travelling along with the deceased. Her evidence shows that they both were travelling by Pune - Nagpur Express by obtaining valid tickets. The said tickets are also produced on record by witness Pornima Prashant Wankhede. Said tickets are verified by the Railway administration and report to that extent is filed. It is certified by the Railway that the ticket No. G48609793 and G48609794 dtd. 17/4/2018, Pune to Akola were issued from Pune through ATVM No. PUNT14. The evidence of said Pornima Prashant Wankhede shows that she was travelling along with the deceased from Pune to Akola when the train was reached near Belapur Railway Station deceased went to attend the nature's call and when he was returning back towards his seat after attending the nature's call due to the rush of the people he fell down on the track, sustained injuries and died on the spot. Said witness is cross-examined at length by the learned Advocate of the Railway. During her cross-examination it is elicited that she had not personally witnessed the incident. She admitted that on the next day of the incident she had given the information to Vijay i.e. father of the deceased. Rest of the cross-examination is in the denial form. Thus, her evidence on record shows that at the ti