The absence of a ticket does not negate the claim of a deceased being a bona fide passenger; the burden of proof shifts to the Railways once claimants establish prima facie evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J.)

1. Heard.

2. Admit. With the consent of parties, taken up for final hearing.

3. This appeal filed by claimants under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 challenges judgment and award dated 14.07.2015 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Case No. OA(llu)/NGP/2012/0193.

4. Kishansingh s/o Biharisingh Thakur on 30.08.2011 boarded Nanded-Hyderabad Train No. 57564 from Nanded railway station for going to Hyderabad. In the midnight of 30.08.2011 and 31.08.2011, during the course of travelling from Nanded to Hyderabad, he fell down from the running train at K.M. No. 393/800 near Umri railway station, due to sudden jerk and came under the wheels of train and died on the spot. On 31.08.2011 at 8.30 hrs, Station Master-I, Umri issued memo to GRP official, Umri on the information of Bhimrao Piraji, keyman at 6.30 hrs, who noticed unknown body lying near the track. Then GRP officials reached on the spot. Claimants, therefore, filed claim contending that death of the deceased has occurred in an untoward incident and claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

5. Railways contested the claim by filing written statement and denied that the death has occurred in an untoward incident. It is contended that deceased was not bonafide passenger.

6. The Tribunal after assessing the material on record and hearing the parties dismissed the claim. Hence, the present appeal.

7. Heard learned advocate for claimants and learned advocate for the railways. Perused the record with the assistance of both the learned advocates for the parties.

8. Learned advocate for the claimants contends that body was found lying next to the railway track, therefore, it is clear that death has occurred in an untoward incident. Merely because ticket was not found, it cannot be said that deceased has not died in an untoward incident. He assailed the findings recorded by the Tribunal stating that findings are contrary to the record and settled legal position. Hence, first appeal deserves to be allowed. In support of his submissions, he relied on decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 169 of 2016, Union of India vs. Rina Devi, AIR 2018 SC 2362, and Mira vs. Union of India, Through its General Manager, AIR Online 2019 Bom 940.

9. Learned advocate for the Railways, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and award. He submits that no ticket was found on the dead body, hence, Tribunal is right in concluding that deceased was not a bonafide passenger. He submits that at the night time doors of bogies are locked. Hence, there is no possibility of deceased falling from the running train. Next submission is in the cause title of the first appeal Byculla address is given, therefore, it is not believable that deceased has purchased ticket from Nanded. He therefore submits that there is no merit in first appeal and it may be dismissed.

10. It is a matter of record that Bhimrao Piraji, railway keyman while inspecting the railway track found one dead body of unknown person, who had fallen from unknown train at K.M. No. 393/800-900 and intimation to that effect was given by him to the Station Master for further necessary action. AD Report given by Shri. Nivaruthi Sontake to Station Master, Railway Station, Umri about the dead body also mentions that deceased had fallen down from railway and expired.

Spot panchnama conducted in AD No. 81/2011 shows that dead body was found 1 feet away from the railway track. Inquest panchnama also mentions that “said deceased person fallen down from unknown train and his both the hands are separated from wrists and died due to seriously injured.” Post mortem report depicts lacerated wound to brain and lacerated wound to the leg c hand. The death is due to massive hemorrhage lead to hypovolemic shock due to fracture of both the hands and tibia and fibula due to fall from train.

11. Accidental death summary report mentions that after completion of investigation conclusion of investigation is that “th