The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant's evidence was sufficient to prove that he was a bona fide passenger and that the injuries were sustained in an untoward incident, entitling him to compensation.

JUDGMENT :

G.A. SANAP, J.

1. In this appeal, filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1987” for short), challenge is to the judgment and order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, whereby the claim filed by the appellant-claimant for compensation on account of injury sustained by him came to be dismissed.

2. Background facts:

The appellant claims that on 15.07.2017, after purchasing the journey ticket, he was travelling from Gondia to Nagpur by Train No. 12834 Howrah-Ahmedabad express. During the course of journey, the appellant went to the wash basin. There was a huge crowd of passengers in the train. He was standing near the door of the compartment. It is stated that due to a sudden jerk to the train, he lost his balance and fell down from the running train near Pachpaoli area of Nagpur city at Kilometer No. 1128/8-10 and came under the wheels of the train. His legs were crushed under the wheel. He was admitted to Mayo Hospital, Nagpur. His both legs were amputated. It is stated that in the accident, the journey ticket was lost.

3. The respondent-Railway filed written statement and opposed the claim. It was contended by the Railway that the injured was not a bona-fide passenger. The journey ticket was not recovered either from the spot or from the injured. The injuries were not sustained in an untoward incident. The injured was negligent.

4. The parties have adduced evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence, found that the evidence was not sufficient to allow the claim and as such, dismissed the claim. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order, the appellant is before this Court in appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Kunal Mirache, learned advocate for the appellant and Ms. Neerja Choube, learned advocate for the respondent. Perused the record and proceedings.

6. In the facts and circumstances, following points fall for my determination:

(i) Whether the injured was a bona fide passenger travelling by the train in question with valid journey ticket?

(ii) Whether the injured sustained injury in an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989?

7. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the injured has filed his affidavit and categorically stated that he had purchased the ticket and in the incident, the ticket was lost. Learned advocate submitted that the injured after falling from the train, was immediately shifted to Mayo Hospital, Nagpur and he was admitted up to 23.08.2017 from the date of the incident i.e. 15.07.2017. Learned advocate submitted that the spot panchanama was drawn after about 15 days from the date of the incident, on 01.08.2017. Learned advocate submitted that the facts stated in the affidavit on this point are sufficient to discharge the initial burden cast on the appellant to prove that he was travelling with a valid journey ticket. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Rina Devi, AIR 2018 SC 2362.

8. As far as untoward incident is concerned, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that certain facts relating to the incident have been admitted and therefore, there is no reason to discard and disbelieve the case of the appellant that while travelling by train, on the spot the deceased fell down due to a sudden jerk to the train. Learned advocate submitted that fall of a passenger while boarding or de-boarding a moving train is covered under the definition of an ‘untoward incident’. Learned advocate further submitted that both legs of the appellant have been amputated and therefore, the case of the appellant would be covered by Entry No. 3 of Part-II of the Schedule appended to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1990”). Learned advocate submitted that amputation of both legs has been proved on t