IMPORTANT POINT
The relevance of initial reports, nature of injuries, and the primacy of oral evidence over medical reports in determining liability and awarding compensation.

JUDGMENT

1. This judgment shall decide an appeal instituted in terms of Section 23 of The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987[RCT Act] by the appellants/claimants assailing the impugned judgment dated 14.08.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi[RCT], whereby the claim of the appellants seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with 18% interest p.a. was dismissed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. The appellants/claimants are the wife, a major son and a major daughter of the deceased. It was the claim of the appellants/claimants that on 12.09.2018, the deceased was travelling from Shahdara to Khurja junction and was having a valid MST[Monthly Season Ticket] pass bearing no. P- 03238245 and ID No. P-03238244 valid from 24.08.2018 up to 23.09.2018 permitting travel from Khurja junction to Shakur-basti and vice-a-versa. It was claimed that on 12.09.2018 the deceased boarded the train from Shahadara for his onward journey to Khurja after performing his duties and that he was standing near the gate of the train compartment, and due to heavy rush inside the train compartment, the deceased accidentally fell down from the running train and received serious/grievous injuries to which he succumbed thereafter.

3. The respondent/Railways contested the claim and denied any liability. It was the defence of the respondent/Railways that the alleged accident as per the appellants/claimants had taken place on 12.09.2018 at around 22.50 hours but the post mortem that was conducted on the body on 13.09.2018 at 2.35 pm, revealed that the time of death was about 3 to 4 days prior; and therefore, the death had not taken place on 12.09.2018.

4. Learned RCT based on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:

"i) Whether the deceased was a bona-fide passenger of the train in question at the relevant time of the incident?

ii) Whether the death of the deceased was on account of an accident 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?

iii) Whether the applicants are the dependents of the deceased within the meaning of Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989?

iv) To what amount of compensation, if any, are the applicants entitled?

v) Relief, if any?"

5. Suffice to state that although the learned RCT held that the deceased was found in possession of a valid MST and decided Issue No. 1 in favour of the appellants/claimants, at the same time it held that there was no evidence to show that the deceased was actually travelling in a train and died as a result of an `untoward incident', because neither any train name nor any number had been mentioned in the claim petition, nor even the approximate time of boarding any train from Shahdara station had been specified. It was found that there was no eye-witness either who would have seen the deceased falling down from any train at the site of incident. Hence, learned RCT found it difficult to believe that the death of the deceased occurred as a result of any `untoward incident' in the form of accidental fall from any running train as defined under section 123 (c) of Railways Act, 1989. Issue No. 2 was thus concluded against the applicant. Though Issues No. 3 & 4 were decided in favour of the appellants/claimants, the claim was dismissed for the findings recorded on Issue No. 2.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

6. The impugned judgment is assailed on the grounds that the deceased had been travelling with a valid railway monthly pass and the deceased ought to have been considered as a bona fide passenger in absence of the contrary being proven by the respondent. Heavy reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Union of India v. Parbhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors., 2009 (I) ACC 270 whereby it was observed that "the welfare statues must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the court is not to make inroads by making et