The liability of the Railways is a strict liability, and compensation cannot be denied even if the bona fide passenger is negligent. Compensation can only be denied if the bona fide passenger is found to be criminally negligent and that the death is because of self-inflicted injuries and suicide.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

1. This matter was passed over on the first call when no one appeared for the respondent. Even on the second call no one appears for the respondent. I have hence heard counsel for the appellant and after perusing the record am proceeding to dispose of this appeal filed u/s 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the impugned judgment dated 7.3.2012 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi by which the claim of the appellant/applicant has been dismissed. The facts of the case are that Kulra Ram @ Sonu, who used to do the job of boot polishing, son of appellant/applicant, died in an untoward incident on account of a fall from a train on 17.8.2010. The deceased Sonu had purchased a valid train ticket No. 70892008 dated 17.8.2010 for travelling in Delhi from Adarsh Nagar (workplace) to Narela (home). When the station of Narela was about to be reached, on account of jostling of passengers in the train, the deceased fell down from the train and succumbed to his injuries.

2. Respondent Railways denied the claim and contended that actually the case is a case of run over by a train and not a fall from the train. Though, during the Jamatalashi/search of the body of the deceased the valid train ticket No. 70892008 dated 17.8.2010 (i.e. the date of the accident) was recovered, the Railway Claims Tribunal has held that since deceased died on account of being run over, and not because of fall from the train, accordingly the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and hence the compensation petition was dismissed.

3. Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition essentially on two counts. First is by not believing of the witness Jeetu who deposed as AW-2 and who was traveling with the deceased Sonu, on account of contradictions which according to the Tribunal existed in his evidence. Related with this aspect is a contradiction in the statement/ deposition of the appellant/applicant as to how he first came to know of the incident. The second count is that since the body was found within the railway track, the same showed that it could not have been on account of fall from a train, and that finding of the body within the track is suggestive of the case that the deceased was run over by a train.

4. The prima facie appealing observations of the Railway Claims Tribunal of dismissing the claim petition are contained in paras 3.2 to 3.6 of the judgment and the same read as under:

3.2 The evidence of Jeetu, AW-2 and the alleged eyewitness to the incident is examined as under:-

(i) There is no averment in the claim application that Jeetu, AW-2, the alleged eyewitness to the incident was also travelling in the same train i.e. DPM on the day in question. Further, no amendment application has been moved by the application for including the name of the alleged eyewitness in the claim application.

(ii) The name of Jeetu does not appear in any of the police documents, AW1/3, AW1/4 and AW1/9.

(iii) The statement of AW-2 given before the police is un-dated, while all the other statements i.e. AW1/5, AW1/6 and AW1/8 are dated 17.8.10. This itself creates a reasonable suspicion that his statement has been taken later on for the purpose of this case.

(iv) In Para 1 of his affidavit, AW-2 stated that he was an eyewitness to the incident and was well-conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. He, however, contradicted himself, during his cross-examination that he dad not seen the incident.

(v) During cross-examination, AW-2 deposed that he alone and nobody else had given the information about the incident to the applicant. The same is, however, contradicted by the applicant, AW-1 in his statement, AW1/6, given to the police at the spot that he was informed about the incident by the women staying in neighborhood, who collect garbage.

In view of the above, AW-2 appears to be a chance o