Death by accidental fall from passenger train of bonafide ticket holder constitutes 'untoward incident'; unsubstantiated trespass claims via non-eyewitness reports rejected absent proof or expert evidence.

JUDGMENT :

JITENDRA JAIN, J.

1. This appeal challenges an order dated 31^st January, 2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), whereby, the claim made by the appellant came to be rejected on solitary ground that same does not constitute “untoward incident”, as defined by the Railways Act, 1989.

2. I have heard Mr. Khosla, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Irpatgire for the Railways-respondent.

3. The appellant is the daughter of the deceased. The deceased on 28^th December, 2010 was travelling from Nallasopara to Santacruz with a valid season pass. The deceased was working as a housemaid. At around 6.30 a.m. - 7.00 a.m., the deceased lost her life on account of fall from the train and, therefore, the application was made before the Tribunal for compensation.

4. The Tribunal with respect to “bonafide passenger” gave finding in favour of the appellant but with respect to “untoward incident”, relied upon the documents prepared by the railway authorities and after examining the nature of injuries came to a conclusion that the deceased was knocked down while crossing the track and, therefore, the claim was rejected.

5. The respondents are not in appeal against the findings given by the Tribunal in favour of the appellant.

6. The Station Master’s Report dated 28^th December, 2010 does not give any reason for the death, though various reasons are set out including “hit by unknown train while trespassing”. This is the first report prepared after the incident and if the appellant was trespassing, the Station Master would have stated so in his report, but on the contrary, the Station Master has stated “not known”.

7. The inquest panchnama is prepared while the body was lying in the hospital. The panchas have stated that the deceased must have died due to being hit by some unknown local train. Admittedly, the panchas were not the eye witnesses at the time when the incident happened. Therefore, any opinion expressed by such panchas cannot be accepted.

8. The Police Report states that the deceased was crossing lane no. 4 and was hit by some unknown local train and died on the spot. This is stated to have been recorded in the Station Master’s written memo. I have already observed above that, in the Station Master’s Report, there is no such reason given and, therefore, report prepared by the police is on incorrect basis, which does not find its place in the Station Master’s Report.

9. In the Divisional Railway Manager’s Report it is stated and rightly so that, the Station Master did not mention any cause of incident in the memo, but in the inquest panchnama it is stated that the deceased was knocked down by unknown local train. I have already opined my views on both these documents above.

10. Furthermore, Divisional Railway Manager’s Report is based on incorrect facts, which were never recorded in the Station Master’s Report and, therefore, the conclusion that the deceased died on account of negligence, carelessness and trespassing cannot be accepted.

11. In the report prepared by the Station Master and addressed to the General Railway Police (GRP) on 17^th August, 2012 it is stated that, the reason of the untoward incident is not known. In Form No.2 annexed thereto, there is no indication of the case made out of trespassing, negligence, or criminal act.

12. The reasoning of the tribunal based on the nature of injury for coming to the conclusion that the deceased died on account of trespassing or crossing the railway line, cannot be sustained. The respondent-railways have not examined any witness, inclu