In claims under social welfare legislation like the Railways Act, if circumstantial evidence (such as a valid ticket) supports the claimant and the respondent fails to provide evidence that the passenger was crossing tracks, the benefit of doubt favors the claimant as an 'untoward incident'.

JUDGMENT :

JITENDRA JAIN, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the original claimants challenging an order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai dated 7 January 2015, whereby the claim for compensation has been dismissed primarily on the ground that the incident does not fall within the definition of an “untoward incident” as defined under Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989.

2. On 24 September 2010, Mr. Srinivas Komuravelli, while travelling at around 11:30 p.m. from Dockyard Road railway station to Vikhroli railway station, met with an accident at Sewri railway station and died. The parents of Mr. Srinivas, thereafter, filed an application for compensation under the Railways Act, 1989 which came to be dismissed. It is on this background that the present appeal is filed.

3. I have heard Mr, Khosla, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Pandian, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Insofar as the recovery of ticket is concerned, the inquest panchnama prepared on the date of the incident records that a ticket dated 24 September 2010 for the journey from Vikhroli to Dockyard Road was recovered along with Hyderabad-Mumbai railway ticket. This is a report prepared by the authorities of the respondent. Even the police report prepared confirms the recovery of the ticket for journey from Vikhroli to Dockyard Road. Therefore, insofar as the issue of “bonafide passenger” is concerned, the appellants have proved that the deceased was travelling on a valid ticket.

5. Now coming to the issue of “untoward incident,” the deceased fell on the track which was going towards CSMT railway station whereas the deceased was travelling from Dockyard Road to Vikhroli in the opposite direction. The Dockyard Road railway station is on the right hand side of the train moving towards Bandra, whereas Sewri railway station is towards the left. It is possible that due to rush at Sewri railway station, the deceased who was standing near the door may have been pushed down and lost his balance from force from left side and had fallen on the track towards CSMT. At that point of time, the train going towards CSMT would have hit the deceased resulting in his death.

6. It is important to note that though the timing of the incident was 23:30 hours, there would be passengers on the railway station to witness the incident. If the deceased was struck by a moving train while crossing the track at the station, then there would have been passengers on the platform who would have observed him crossing the track. There is no evidence or eye witness of any person stating that the deceased was crossing the track at the time of the incident. Even the Motorman, who might have seen, the deceased being struck, was not examined. The details of train is also not stated in the records of the respondent as required as per Form-2. Therefore, the contention raised by the respondent that the deceased, who died while crossing the track by moving train, cannot be accepted.

7. The fact that the train ticket was from Vikhroli to Dockyard Road. indicates that the deceased may have boarded the train at Dockyard Road railway station which is on the right side of the train moving towards Bandra. There is no reason for the deceased to cross the railway track at Sewri. The respondent should have led evidence of any witness in support of their submission that the deceased was crossing the tracks at the time of the incident.

8. In the absence of the same, the circumstantial evidence would show that the deceased fell down from a train while travelling from Dockyard Road to Vikhroli on the other side of the platform and he was hit by a train moving towards CSMT station, which has resulted into his death.

9. In a case dealing with social welfare legislation, if there is any doubt with respect to the nature of the incident and the authorities have not led any evidence of any witness but the circumstantial evidence in the form of the railway ticket tilts in favour of the original claimants, then an inte