Claimants must prove all relevant facts to establish entitlement to compensation under the Railways Act; mere deposition is insufficient without corroborating evidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the original Applicants whose claim for compensation on account of death of Appellant No. 1’s- husband in an incident of 20^th January, 2010 has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 29^th July, 2016.

2. The facts of the case are that the Application for compensation filed in the prescribed form pleads that on 20th January, 2010, the deceased accidentally fell down from unknown local train near Virar railway station while travelling with friends between Borivali-Virar- Palghar railway stations and expired. The deceased had valid II^nd class railway ticket bearing No. 44630987, valid for travel between Borivali to Virar railway station and that ticket for Palghar was lost in the untoward incident. Along with Application, the Applicant’s annexed Station Master’s report, copy of Inquest Panchnama, copy of the police report, copy of death certificate, copy of railway ticket, copy of Voter ID card and birth certificate.

3. The claim came to be resisted by Railways contending that as per Station Master’s memo, on 20^th January, 2010, the deceased’s body was found lying at KM No. 60/17 between Virar and Vaitarna station on Up M/Line and there is no evidence to prove that deceased had fallen down from running local train. It was further contended that deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Along with the Written Statement, the copy of the Station Master’s memo, station master’s diary, Divisional Railway Manager’s report and investigation report were produced.

4. The Applicant No. 1 examined herself and deposed that on the date of incident, the deceased was travelling with his friend from Borivali to Palghar when he accidentally fell down from Virar-Dahanu local train near Virar railway station and that he was holding a valid II^nd class railway ticket for travelling between Borivali and Virar railway station. She has further deposed that she was informed by the deceased’s friend that the ticket purchased by deceased from Virar for travel between Virar and Palghar station is lost in the incident.

5. The Applicant also examined one Dipak Dattaram Jadhav who was the friend of deceased. He had deposed that on 20^th January, 2010 at night, the deceased met him at Virar railway station and they were proceeding to Palghar to stay at a friend’s place. At Virar railway station, the deceased purchased the railway ticket for their journey between Virar to Palghar Station, and tickets were lost in the accident. He had deposed that they boarded Virar-Dahanu train to go to Palghar and due to excessive rush, after train had moved for some distance from Virar railway station, the deceased fell down. He had deposed that he pulled the chain and after the train stopped, he informed the Railway Police and then the deceased was taken to Bhagwati Hospital where he was declared dead.

6. The Trial Court framed the necessary issues as to whether deceased was a bona fide purchaser; and whether the deceased had met with an “untoward incident” and answered both the issues against the Applicant.

7. As regards the issue of being bona fide passenger, the Trial Court perused the Police Report which did not have any mention of any ticket or travelling authority beyond Virar railway station and only Borivali to Virar ticket was found. The Trial Court held that the ticket between Borviali to Virar railway station will not establish valid travel beyond Virar station.

8. On the aspect of untoward incident, the Trial Court noted the Station Master’s Memo informing police at 10.30 p.m., that at K.M. No. 60/17 besides Up line, one person is hit by unknown Up railway train, between Virar and Viatarna railway station, got injured and was taken to Bhagwati Hospital, where he was declared dead. The Trial Court accepted the genuineness of document prepared by railway officials and held that the death had not occurred due to an “untoward incident”. The Trial Court also noted that A.W.-2 had not given any statement to the P