The absence of a ticket does not negate a claim of being a bonafide passenger; the burden of proof lies with the Railways to disprove such claims.

JUDGMENT :

Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 on behalf of the appellant/ Union of India against the judgment/ order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna in O.A. No. 00643 of 2014 by which the Original Application filed by the Applicant/ respondent has been allowed and the Railway was directed to pay Rs. 4 lakhs along with interest.

3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this appeal are that Mantu Kumar (husband of the applicant) had come to Gaya Junction from Vishakhapatnam on 27.04.2014 and after purchasing a second class valid train ticket from Gaya Junction on 27.04.2014 for going to Koderma, he had boarded the Train No. 13306 Down (Gaya-Dhanbad Intercity Express Train) at Gaya Junction. It is alleged that there was heavy rush in the general compartment of the train due to which the deceased was standing near the gate inside the Coach of the Train and due to heavy rush and intense jostling of passengers the deceased accidentally fallen down from the said running train about 1km East to Gaya Junction near Vairagi. It is stated that due to falling down from the running train, the deceased sustained serious injuries and he died on the spot. The appellant/ Union of India (Railways) contested the claim by filing written statement denying the case to be an untoward incident. It is contended that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger of the said train while going to Koderma, at the relevant time, as recovery of ticket was not mentioned in the inquest report. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of rival pleadings framed the following issues:-

(i) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger?

(ii) Whether the death of the deceased is covered under the alleged untoward incident, as defined under Section 123 (c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989?

(iii) Whether the applicant is dependent of the deceased

(iv) Whether the applicant/ dependents are entitled to get compensation, if yes, to what extent?

4. During enquiry, in order to establish the claim, the claimant being wife of the deceased filed her affidavit (Ext.-AW1/A) in support of her contentions made in her application. She was cross-examined on behalf of the appellant/Railway. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she was at her house at the time of said incident and she had got the information about the said incident from her family members. The applicant has also produced documentary evidence; Ext.-A1 is the Station Memo issued by the Station Manager, Gaya Junction, Ext.- A2 is the letter/ statement of Sri Suresh Prasad, Ext.- A3 is the inquest report, Ext.- A4 is post-mortem report, Ext.- A5 is dead body receipt, Ext.- A6 is final report, Ext.- A7 is death certificate of the deceased, Ext.- A8 is family membership certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Ekangarsarai, Nalanda and Ext.- A9 is copy of voter identity card of the applicant. On behalf of Railways, Ext.- R1, i.e. DRM report has been filed which shows that the deceased had died due to falling down from the train due to his own negligence. On the basis of the material on record and the evidences filed on behalf of parties and after hearing the parties, the learned Railway Claims Tribunal held that the deceased Mantu Kumar (husband of the applicant) had met with an untoward incident due to falling down from the said train and he had succumbed to his injuries during his medical treatment and the application is liable to be partly allowed and accordingly, the Railway was directed to make payment of compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs along with simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of registration of this application, i.e. 07.10.2014 within 60 days from the date of submission of the Bank Account details/ mandate by the applicant, otherwise the entire amount of the compensation will attract simple interest 2% per annum more fro