The Railway Administration holds no-fault liability under the Railways Act, entitling claimants to compensation without proof of negligence, provided they established the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

JUDGMENT :

M.M. SATHAYE, J.

1. This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 challenging the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.2014 passed in Claim Application No. OA(IIu)/MCC/2012/0087 by Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai. By the said impugned order the claim is rejected and dismissed.

2. Few facts necessary for disposal of this Appeal are as under. The Appellants are parents of the deceased Nikhil Balaji Kapale, who fell down from local train carrying passenger between Talegaon and Chinchwad railway station on 03.11.2007. It is the case of the Appellants that deceased Nikhil was travelling with IInd class season ticket and fell down from running train at Ravet bridge between Dehu Road and Akurdi railway station, due to sudden push by other passengers. It is contended that his body remained undetected in the tall grass and bushes and was ultimately found on 10.11.2007.

3. The Respondent/railway contested the application by denying all allegations. It is contended that the deceased was travelling in careless, rash and negligent manner without taking adequate precaution, as a result of which he sustained injuries which proved fatal. The incident of fall during travel is denied. It is further denied that due to tall grass around the tracks, the body remained undetected till it was found.

4. The Appellant No.1 has filed affidavit. Copies of police report, inquest panchnama, ration card, bank passbook, SM Memo are also filed.

5. The Tribunal has held that the body of the deceased was found after 7 days and complete details of ticket have not been given. It is held that this is not the case of fall from train because body was lying 35 feet away from the track and it was found lying near Ravet bridge. It is held that recovery of ‘railways pass’ with the deceased does not mean that travel has taken place necessarily. It is held that filing of missing complaint does not prove that the deceased fell down from train. The Tribunal held that since the travel itself is not proved, the issue of bonafide passenger is irrelevant.

6. Learned Counsel Mr. Singh appearing for the Appellants submitted that the evidence on record is considered in perverse manner.

He submitted that because of the topography at the relevant place, it is possible that body rolled down or dragged by animals and therefore, was found at distance of 35 feet. It is submitted that Railway pass has been found in the wallet of the deceased. It is submitted that the aspect of the fault or deceased being negligent, is irrelevant for the purpose of present claim. He relied on following Judgments:

(i) Union of India v/s Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar & Ors.

(ii) Jameela and Ors. v/s. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 1184 of 2003 dated 27.08.2010)

(iii) Mohamadi and Ors v/s. Union of India (2011 ACJ 2356)

(iv) Union of India v/s Rina Devi (2019)3 SCC 572

(v) Union of India v/s. Kalpanaben Pravin Patil (FA No. 278 of 2005 dated 04.02.2010, Gujarat High Court)

(vi) N. Buchilingam and Ors. v/s. Union of India (CMA No. 2286/1999 dated 20.09.2004 Andhra Pradesh High Court)

7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Mr. Pandian on the other hand submitted that the argument about topography of the spot as well as possibility of animals dragging the body of the deceased is being advanced for the first time in this Court and was not argued before the Tribunal. He submitted that by the very nature of claim and dispute, it has to be considered on case to case basis. He submitted that it is unlikely that the deceased fell down from train considering fact that his b