The onus to prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger is on the railway, and the Railways Act should receive a liberal and wider interpretation.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.07.2012 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench in Claim Application No. OA 000142/2002 by which the claim application, filed by the appellant under Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 read with Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 claiming a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of her son due to injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident, has been dismissed.

2. The case of the appellant as per claim application, in brief, is that on 10.12.2001, her son Uday Sao (deceased) boarded in Rajgir-Danapur Shuttle train at Patna Sahib Railway Station with a valid ticket. During journey, he accidentally fell down from the train and received grievous injuries. He was rushed to N.M.C.H, Patna where he died in course of treatment.

3. The respondent filed written statement that the claim application is not maintainable in law. The alleged accident was not an untoward incident in terms of provisions of Section 123 of the Railways (Amendment) Act, 1994. It has not been admitted that the deceased fell down from the passenger train near Patna Sahib Railway Station on 10.12.2001. The claimant has to prove that he was a bonafide passenger of the train having valid ticket.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed:-

(i) Whether the deceased was victim of the alleged untoward incident, as defined under Section 123 (C) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989?

(ii) Whether the deceased Uday Sao was a bonafide passenger of Rajgir-Danapur train on 10.12.2001, at the time of the alleged untoward incident?

(iii) Whether the claim application of the applicant is maintainable?

(iv) Whether the applicant/dependents of the deceased are entitled to receive compensation, as claimed for?

5. In support of her claim, the appellant has examined herself as AW-1 and Ganauri Chaudhary as AW-2. In addition to the oral evidence, the following documentary evidence has been filed : Exhibit-A-1 is the affidavit of the appellant, Exbt.A-2 is the affidavit of Ganauri Chaudhary, Exbt.A-3 is the copy of the Fardbeyan of the appellant, Exbt.A-4 is the FIR/final report submitted by the police, Exbt.A-5 is the copy of the inquest report, Exbt.A-6 is the copy of the post-mortem examination report, Exbts. A-7, A-8 and A-9 are the copies of the identity card of Ganauri Chaudhary, Sumitra Devi and Uday Kumar.

6. The respondents have not produced any witness in support of their contention in the written statement.

7. The learned Tribunal has held that the deceased Uday Sao was not a bonafide rail passenger but an unauthorized vendor and did not die in any untoward incident in the railway and the claim petition has been dismissed.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has misdirected itself that the deceased was selling peanuts in the train and he was an unauthorized vendor and had got no passenger ticket since he was not a bonafide railway passenger but an unauthorized vendor died after slipping from the foot board presumably at the time moving from one coach to another when the train was on the move. There is no evidence on the record to make such idea and presumption. In the claim application, it has been stated that the deceased was going to Patna Junction to Patna Sahib by Rajgir-Danapur Shuttle train having a valid railway ticket and boarded in the train at Patna Sahib Railway station and at some distance from Patna Sahib Railway Station, the deceased fell down from the running train as a result of which, he sustained injuries and he was hospitalized at NMCH, Panta where he died during the treatment. The matter was reported to the Alamganj Police Station and the same was forwarded to the Railway Police, Patna Sahib and accordingly, UD case No.5/2002 has been registered. After investigation, the police has found that the deceased was the victim of the incident is true and the deceased died in the said untoward