The absence of a railway ticket does not negate a claim of being a bonafide passenger; the burden of proof shifts to the Railways once the claimant provides relevant evidence.

JUDGMENT :

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

1. The Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the Original Applicants whose claim for compensation on account of death of their son in an incident of 5th October, 2013 filed under Section 16(1) r/w Section 13(1-A) of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 r/w Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 has been dismissed by the impugned Judgment dated 30^th September, 2019.

2. The Application for compensation filed in the prescribed form pleads that on 5^th October, 2013 their son Dip Pinto Sen wanted to go to Kalyan for some work and bought return railway ticket from Ambernath to Kalyan. After finishing the work, their son came to Kalyan Railway Station and boarded the local train to Ambernath where he used to reside. When the said train reached between Vitthalwadi and Ulhasnagar railway station, the deceased accidentally fell down from the train due to heavy rush in the compartment and expired on the spot. The deceased was holding II^nd class return railway ticket from Ambernath to Kalyan, which got lost in the accident. The Applicants claimed to be financially dependent on the deceased. Along with the Application, the Applicants filed the Station Master memo, Police Report, Inquest Panchanama, Statement, Ration Card and copy of bank Pass Book.

3. The defence of the Respondent was that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and the investigation report revealed that the deceased was run over while unauthorizedly crossing the railway tracks.

4. The Applicant No. 1 examined himself and deposed to the contents of the Application, and, produced the copy of station master memo, Police Report, inquest panchnama, spot panchnama, death certificate, copy of bank pass book, Identity Card and ration card. In the cross examination, he admitted that he had not personally witnessed the incident. The Railways filed its DRM’s report.

5. The Railway Claims Tribunal framed the following relevant issues:

“i) Whether the applicants prove that they are the dependents of the deceased within the meaning of Section 123 (b) of the Railways Act?

ii) Whether the applicants prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train, in question, on the relevant day?

iii) Whether the applicants prove that the death of the deceased had occurred as a result of an untoward incident, as alleged in the claim application?

6. The Railway Claims Tribunal answered the Issue No. 1 in favour of the Applicants however, as regards the issues of the deceased being bonafide passenger and the accident being an untoward incident were answered against the Applicant. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the Claim Application based on the DRM’s Report that as the GRP has not mentioned about recovery of any railway ticket or pass from the possession of the deceased during the inquest proceedings, the deceased cannot be termed as bonafide passenger. The Tribunal further accepted the observation in the inquest panchanama and Deputy Station Superintendent’s Memo that the deceased was hit by unknown train while crossing the railway track in negligent manner.

7. Mr. More, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant would submit that the Appellant No. 1 had filed his affidavit of evidence specifically deposing that the deceased had gone to Kalyan for his personal work and was coming back from Kalyan to Ambernath by local train and had accidentally fallen down from the running train and his body was cut into two pieces and he expired on the spot. He has further deposed that the ticket might have been lost in the accident and that he was travelling by the local train having valid railway ticket and was bonafide passenger of the train.

8. He submits that in the cros