IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the strict liability or no-fault liability in railway accidents and the definition of 'passenger' under the Railway Act.

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal is filed in terms of Section 23 of The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987[RCT Act] assailing the impugned order dated 17.09.2018 passed by the Learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi[RCT], in claim application bearing No. OA (IIu) No. 306/2017 (hereinafter referred to as the `claim application') under section 16 of the learned RCT Act, titled `Smt. Resham & Ors. Vs. Union of India', whereby the learned RCT dismissed the claim application of the applicants (appellants herein).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. To put it briefly, the appellants before this Court are the legal heirs of the deceased Shri Nitin Kumar, consisting of his wife, minor son and dependent parents. It is their case that the deceased was a daily passenger having a valid MST[Monthly Season Ticket] No. 15703626 valid from 19.08.2017 to 18.09.2017. On the fateful day of the accident, i.e., 16.09.2017, the deceased was travelling from Ghaziabad to Okhla by train for his duty at Intex Phone Service Centre, and when the train reached at Platform No.3, Tilak Bridge Railway Station, New Delhi, he accidently fell down from the moving train and sustained serious/grievous injuries all over his body leading to his death. Post-mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased vide PMR No.823/2017 at Maulana Azad Medical College & Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi wherein opinion was expressed that the injuries were possibly sustained in a railway accident. This sequence of events led to the filing of the claim application by appellant/applicant under Section 16(1) read with Section 13 (1-A) of The RCT Act, and Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989.

3. Respondent Railways contested the claim application and relying upon the DRM Report, it was stated that the deceased was not a `bona fide passenger' of the train and that the incident occurred due to negligent and careless act on the part of the deceased, as he trying to de-board from a moving train.

4. The Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:

"1. Whether the deceased was a passenger of the train in question at the relevant time of the incident?

2. Whether the death of the deceased was on account of an accidental fall from the train in question, amounting to an untoward incident, as defined under Section 123(c), read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989?

3. Whether the applicants are the dependants of the deceased within the meaning of Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989?

4. To what amount of compensation, if any, are the applicants entitled? and

5. Relief, if any?"

5. Perusal of the record shows that the learned RCT vide order dated 07.06.2018, closed the evidence of the claimant/wife of the deceased observing that she was not an eye witness and marked the entire documents placed on the record as A-1 to A-23 as the same were admitted. No evidence was led by the respondent either. However, the learned RCT called upon the claimants to demonstrate how the MST was valid to travel on Lucknow Mail assuming that it was a superfast train, and no information was sought from the respondent Railways. Eventually, learned RCT vide impugned order dated 17.09.2018 held that although the deceased had died in an `untoward incident' sustaining injuries on falling out of a moving Lucknow Mail Express Train, it was held that MST was valid for "to and fro" journey from Ghaziabad and Okhla via Old Delhi form 19.08.2017 to 18.09.2017 for a distance of 34 kms; and that the MST holders were permitted to travel only in EMU[Electric Multiple Unit], DEMU[Diesel Electric Multiple Unit] or slow moving conventional passenger trains. The learned RCT held that the deceased was not travelling as per the specific route allowed by the MST and rather took his journey on a superfast train, which was not allowed coupled with the fact that the deceased boarded a train which runs from Ghaziabad to New Delhi via Anand Vihar. Hence, issue Nos. 1 and 2 were held against the claimants. In the end, although c