The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proof shifts to the railway authority to refute a claim for compensation under the Railway Act, and the credibility of the claimant's evidence, if reliable and probable, can be accepted without corroboration.

JUDGMENT :

Subhasis Dasgupta, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1st May, 2007 passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata Bench granting compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- to claimant with direction upon the railway authority to liquidate the amount within two months from the date of order failing which the award shall carry simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of order till realisation.

2. The Tribunal allowed the claim case on the ground that the incident under reference was within the meaning of "untoward incident" but not a simple case of run over, while crossing the railway track carelessly and further held that the deceased was a bona-fide passenger having valid ticket at the time of undertaking journey in passenger's train.

3. Learned advocate for the appellant railway authority in course of hearing urged basically two points, one alleging the incident to be a pure case of run over, not covered by "untoward incident" together with approach adopted by the Tribunal in deciding the claim case after observing therein that the possibility of falling down from a moving train and subsequently being hit by another up train on adjacent line, could not be ruled out, was not the perfect appreciation of the evidence, adduced in this case and the point controverting that since there was no recovery of a ticket from the dead-body of the deceased, the deceased could be construed to be a bone fide passenger at the relevant point of time.

4. Learned advocate for the claimant/respondent supporting the order of Railway Claims Tribunal awarding compensation argued with all fairness that there left nothing to interfere with the observation made by the learned Tribunal being based on evidence.

5. Since the points urged to be on the settled proposition of law, the case was taken up for hearing upon consideration of long pendency of this appeal.

6. Each of the circumstances germane to the incident under reference was considered by the Railway Claims Tribunal while granting compensation. However, some crucial facts may be referred here for the decision of this appeal, which are of highest significance.

7. The deceased, Tapan Bhttacharya being accompanied by his younger brother, Arun Bhattacharya in course of travelling from Bally to Rishra Station on 19th February, 2004 in an over crowed train standing near the exit and entry gate of the compartment, suddenly fell down from the moving train having lost his balance following a sudden jerk in the train when the train was about to reach Rishra Station. As deceased Tapan Bhattacharya fell down on adjacent railway tract, so he was dashed by another moving local UP-M241 Howrah-Burdwan bound train causing him to suffer death on the spot with his one hand cut off by the wheels of the said train. The claimant being mother of the deceased son initiated the claim case under Section 124-A of the Railway Act claiming compensation for the loss occasioned to her by reason of death of her son. Deceased victim was 43 years old at the time of his death.

8. The appellant, railway authority contested the claim by filing written statement denying that incident to be an untoward incident and further the victim to be a bona-fide railway passenger at the material point of time.

9. Railway authority generated a memo by station master of Seoraphuli following receipt of a message of incident from station master Rishra revealing the dead-body to be lying on reverse line between KM-16/07 and 16/09 at level crossing gate No. 3-B, near Rishra station. Police held inquest over the dead-body and subjected the dead-body to go for autopsy.

10. Complainant/Respondent sought to establish her case by examining two witnesses, one of which was the complainant herself, being mother of the deceased son, and another is the younger brother, an eye witness to the incident. For and on behalf of appellant/railway authority, no witness was examined, though denial of the incident was the only basi