The central legal point established is the requirement for evidence of the deceased being a bonafide passenger with a valid ticket and proof of the death occurring due to a fall from the train in order to support a claim under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and the Railways Act, 1989.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This first appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is filed against the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 5.10.2016 which has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants/applicants. The claim petition was filed on account of death of Mohd. Yakoob on 19.8.2014.

2. The facts of the case as pleaded by the appellants/applicants are that the deceased Mohd. Yakoob after purchasing of a valid journey ticket was travelling by Toofan Express Train from New Delhi to Behraich. That when the train reached Itawa the train took a sudden jerk which resulted in the deceased falling out of the moving train and he died as a result of the untoward incident. The claim petition was hence filed by the appellants/applicants, and who are the parents and children of the deceased.

3. The Railway Claims Tribunal below has dismissed the claim petition by observing that the appellants/applicants are only entitled to compensation if it was first found that the deceased was a bonafide passenger having purchased a valid train ticket, and it has been found that no ticket was found on the person of the deceased. The Railway Claims Tribunal has also held that there was no proof that the deceased died on account of fall from the train and in fact the deceased was found in an injured condition with legs amputated by the 3008 Express Train on eastern side of the platform near the pathway. The relevant observations of the Railway Claims Tribunal for dismissing of the claim petition read as under:-

“No ticket was found on the person of the deceased. Deceased was found in an injured condition with legs amputated by 3008 Express train on Eastern side of the platform near the pathway as per Station Master’s Memo and died after reaching the hospital. Applicants could not produce any evidence of the deceased travelling on the train in question. If the deceased fell at Itawa railway station and as per exhibit A-3, inquiry report of police, he was resident of Behraich. When informed by the police about the death of Shri Yakoob, his elder brother informed that he is a heart patient, his father is 100 years old, wife of the deceased has predeceased him and whereabouts of his children are not known. He said that they cannot come to take over the dead body and that body may be buried as per their customs. One bag was found with the dead body but no ticket recovery is mentioned anywhere. Although GRP documents conclude fall from the train, but they are all based on presumption and not on any evidence. It is also surprising that family could come to Police Station 2 to 3 weeks after the death to collect information but did not bother about the last rites of the deceased. The learned counsel for the respondent brought out discrepancies in various documents. Whereas as per application, the deceased died on 19.8.14, but the family came to police station to find out the details of accident on 6.9.14. but, in the cross-examination of AW-1, Shri Mohd Ismail, father of the deceased stated that he came to police station on 31.8.14. The father of the deceased is said to be 100 years old but as per election identity card he is only 70 years old and as per passport, he is 80 years old. Perhaps this is not material. The name of the daughter, applicant No. 3 was also not matching and amended later from Huma Bano to Huma Begum. AW-1 stated her name as Huma Bano in his evidence, but the name in the Aadhar Card (only photocopy, original not produced) is Huma Begum. This also may be discarded as not very material if all the discrepancy was with regard to the name, but she is shown as 33 years old as per the photocopy of Aadhar Card, but she is stated to be 17.6 years as per the application and certificates of ADM, exhibit A-5. The whereabouts of children of the deceased were stated to be not known, as per their uncle (Ex.A-3)

In view of the facts brought out above, it is held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenge