The Railway Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide claims for compensation in case of death or injury only when there is an accident, and the burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish negligence on the part of the Railway.

Mr. Justice S.N. Phukan, President — The present petition has been filed by husband and wife against the Railway for the death of their son Harshanath Das. According to the petitioners, who are residing at Bapujinagar, Goalpara, Assam, the above son was travelling from Aligash to Guwahati on 10.8.92 by North-East Express. He was travelling by holding a valid ticket along with his friend. As he did not reach Guwahati on 11.8.92, the petitioner No. 1 after waiting for few days went to Aligarh and it was confirmed that he was travelling as stated above. He made enquiries and at Patna sahib Junction he came to know that dead-body of a boy was found near the Railway Station and the G R.P.F. personnel also took photograph and it was confirmed that the dead body of the boy was the son of the petitioners. According to the petitioners death of their son was due to negligence or careless on the part of the Railways. It was also staled that a case was registered on 11.8.92 by G.R.P.F. being G.R.P.F. Case No. 18 of 1992. Postmortem was also done. According to the petitioners as the death was due to negligence of Railways, they are entitled to get compensation. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs has been claimed.

2. On behalf of the Railway, a preliminary point has been taken that this Commission has no jurisdiction in view of provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1947, for short, ‘the Act’. On this point, parties were heard. On perusal of the record, we are of the opinion that the entire matter can be disposed.

3. The Commission directed the police authority of Patna to send the copies of the case diary and the relevant records.

4. First let us decide whether this Commission has got jurisdiction to entertain such a claim.

5. From the long title of the Act, it is clear that the Claims Tribunal was constituted for enquiring and determining claims against Railway for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to it to be carried by Railway and for refund fares and freight or for compensation of death or to injury to passenger occurring as a result of railway accidents and matters connected thereof. We may refer to Section 13 of the Act which has laid down jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Claims Tribunal. For the purpose of present petition, we may refer to Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Subsection (1) of the said Act which gives jurisdiction to the Claims Tribunal in respect of compensation payable under Section 82-A of the Railways Act or the rules made there under. According to Section 82-A, the Railways shall be liable for death of a passenger or for personal injury and loss, destruction or deterioration of animals or goods owned by the passenger and accompanying the passenger in his compartment or on the train if such death or loss was as a result of accident due to collision between trains. Therefore, the power of the Claims Tribunal is to decide claims in case of death or injury only when there is an accident. But in the case in hand there is no dispute that the death of boy did not occur due to any such accident. Therefore, the present claim does not come under the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal. Accordingly we hold that this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.

6. We may also refer to the decision of the National Commission in General Manager, South-eastern Railway & Ors. v. Anand Prasad Sinha and Others, I (1991) CPJ 10 (NC) in which the National Commission held that a person travelling by train on the payment of stipulated fare charged for the ticket are ‘consumers’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the deceased was a consumer as he was travelling and holding a valid ticket.

7. Now the question is whether his death was due to negligence of Railways. From the case diary we find that the father of the boy, namely, the petitioner No. 1 informed the police that he suspected foul play which was the cause of death of his son. T