The liability of the railway administration to compensate for untoward incidents is strict and can be claimed by the legal representatives of a deceased dependent even after their demise.

JUDGMENT:-

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

1. This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (“the Act, 1987”) is directed against the judgment and award dated 16^th June, 2014 passed by the learned Member (Technical) of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai (“the Tribunal”), whereby the claim application OA No.(IIU)/MCC/2011/0891, preferred by the appellants under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (“the Railways Act”) for compensation on account of the death of Amit Tambe (“the deceased”), the son of applicant No.1 Mahadev and brother of applicant No.2 Smt. Sonal, in an untoward incident, dated 25^th July, 2011, came to be dismissed.

Background facts:

2. The deceased, then 25 years of age, was a bachelor. On 25^th July, 2011, the deceased was travelling from Malad to Mahalaxmi Station by a local train on a valid second class season ticket, issued on 17^th July, 2011. The applicants assert that, between Lower Parel and Mahalaxmi Station, the deceased accidentally fell off from an unknown running train and sustained fatal injuries. He succumbed to the injuries before he could be admitted in hospital. As the deceased was a bachelor, Mahadev, the father, and Smt. Sonal, the sister, preferred the application for compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act.

3. The respondent resisted the application by filing a written statement. Refuting the assertions of the applicants that the deceased died on account of an untoward incident, it was contended that the Charge Report prepared at the Lower Parel Station indicated that an unknown male was found lying dead on the tracks between 7/05 and 7/06 km. but in the absence of evidence regarding the mode and manner of the alleged incident, it cannot be termed as an “untoward incident”. Resultantly, the applicants were not entitled to claim compensation. The respondent sought to place the onus of proof of the fact that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, on the applicants.

4. The Tribunal recorded the evidence of application No.1 Mahadev (AW1). It seems that Smt. Sonal (A2) withdrew her claim by filing an affidavit.

Impugned Award:

5. After appraisal of oral evidence and the documents tendered for his perusal, especially, the accident memo and inquest panchnama, the learned Member, (Technical) was persuaded to return a finding that the applicants failed to establish that the deceased died on account of an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. The fact that the deceased was found lying “Up through fast track next to STA line”, weighed with the learned Member in holding that the deceased could not have fallen off from a slow train which stops at Mahalaxmi Station as the slow trains run on the slow track. The fact that the deceased was holding a season ticket did not necessarily justify an inference that the deceased was travelling in the train at the time of the incident, reasoned the learned Member.

Issues in Appeal:

6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the applicants have preferred this appeal. It would be contextually relevant to note that during the pendency of appeal, Mahadev (A1), the father of the deceased, passed away. Smt. Sonal (A2), the daughter of Mahadev (A1) and the sister of the deceased, prosecuted appeal as the sole legal representative of Mahadev (A1). Conseque