Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish the occurrence of an untoward incident and passenger status under the Railways Act, not necessitating physical ticket proof.

JUDGMENT :

Jitendra Jain, J.

1. This appeal challenges an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 29^th January, 2016 whereby the application made by the appellants/ applicants seeking compensation from the respondent on account of death of their son Jaideep Tambe was dismissed on the ground that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and also there is no record of the “untoward incident” having occurred as per the records of the officials of the respondent. The relevant Act under which the claim was made is The Railways Act, 1989, and the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

2. The issues which arises in this Appeal are :-

(a) Whether the appellants/applicants have proved that Jaideep Tambe died on account of an “untoward incident” so as to be eligible for compensation ?

(b) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger ?

3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent and have perused the documents brought to my notice by the counsel.

4. The deceased was a 17 year old boy who in the night of 05^th September, 2008 was travelling by local train from Jogeshwari Station to Lower Parel Station for taking darshan of Lord Ganesh at Lalbaug during Ganesh Festival. He was accompanied by some of his friends and between Elphinstone Railway Station and Lower Parel Railway Station, the deceased fell down due to rush in the train. His friends alighted at Lower Parel Station and instead of informing the station officials about the incident, rushed to the accident spot and took the deceased to K.E.M. Hospital at Parel for treatment. But before he could be treated, he was declared dead on arrival by doctors at K.E.M. Hospital.

5. The first issue which requires consideration is the non-reporting of the incident by the friends of the deceased to the nearest railway station officials. The deceased and his friends were in the age group of 17-18 years and the deceased having fallen from the train, it is possible that the friends were shocked and frightened and, therefore, instead of informing the station officials, rushed back to the spot of the incident and took him to the K.E.M. hospital, because first priority in such cases is to save the injured person. In such cases, therefore, it is important to consider other materials and circumstance to ascertain whether any such incident has actually happened.

6. The above incident has been recorded in the inquest panchnama dated 06^th September, 2008. This is the first available opportunity which indicates that the incident has actually happened and the note of the said incident was made in the inquest panchnama. Similarly, one Mr. Vivek Tukral, friend of the deceased who arrived at the K.E.M. Hospital in early hours of 06^th September, 2008 narrated this incident to the police officials and doctor present at the K.E.M. hospital. This also is a circumstantial evidence, which was recorded immediately after the incident to indicate that the incident had happened. The postmortem report also states the cause of death as head injury, which is most likely to happen when a person falls from train and more particularly from a moving train. This postmortem report was prepared by K.E.M. hospital, which was the hospital where the deceased was taken by his friends. The incident has also been recorded in the investigation report, which was prepared by IPF/ Headquarter/BCT and which is at page 28 of the paper-book.

7. In the report of Inspector of Railway Police, Dadar, it is mentioned that the Government Railway Police (GRP) had recorded statement of Vivek Tukral at K.E.M. Hospital about the inci