IMPORTANT POINT
The initial burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish a deceased's status as a bona fide passenger, which can shift to the railways upon presenting relevant evidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-Union of India of India/original respondent under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 27.06.1997 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Claim Application OA No.9700006. By the said judgment and order, the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition in a fatal case awarding the compensation to the original claimants of an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs with further directions of disbursement.

2. The facts giving rise to filling of the present appeal as narrated by the appellant in the present appeal are stated hereunder:

2.1 The opponent/original applicant preferred claim application being OA No.9700006 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad seeking compensation for the untimely death of her husband who unfortunately fell down from a running train 9030-UP while travelling from Ranoli to Baroda. The deceased fell down near Baroda Yard (D) Cabin on 14.11.1996.

2.2 The deceased was serving at Ranoli and used to commute frequently between Baroda to Ranoli and as he was having his residence at Baroda. Due to untimely death of the husband of the applicant, the original claimant has approached the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs with interest.

2.3 The precise question which was decided by the Tribunal was whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger in the train and can be considered the dependent heirs of the deceased.

2.4 Before the Tribunal, the claimant had herself appeared as witness and was examined at Exh.9. The reliance was placed on the panchnama drawn by the Police Authorities during the investigation of the accidental case at Exh.10. The copy of inquest panchnama was also produced at Exh.11 and the post mortem note was produced at Exh.12.

2.5 The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the aforesaid evidence in light of Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989,more particularly amended Section as inserted after Clause-’B’ by Act 28 of 1994, which defines the term “untoward incident”. The Tribunal noticed that subsection 2 of Clause-’C’ of Section 123 of the Act, considers the accidental falling of any passenger from the train carrying passengers to mean “untoward incident”. The Tribunal further examined the contention of the respondent-Railway of the claimant has not proved that the deceased was a bona fide passenger in the train. Upon close appreciation of the evidence of the original claimant, the Tribunal noticed that the claimant has produced monthly season tickets at Exh.13 of the month of November-1995, March-1996, April-1996 and May-1996, which indicates that her husband was holding monthly seasonal tickets as he was frequently travelling between Ranoli and Baroda. By relying upon the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Rajkumari vs. Union of India reported in 1994(1) T.A.C. 67, the Tribunal took into consideration of Section 113 and Section 122 of the Railways Act, 1989, which makes the travelling without ticket is an offence under certain circumstances. However, the Tribunal was of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it can presume the fact of the deceased holding a valid ticket, by taking aid of Section 114 of the Act, by keeping in mind the prohibition envisaged under Section 68 of the Act against travelling on train without ticket, and arrived at a conclusion that the claimant had succeeded to raise presumption and the burden was upon the respondent-Union to prove the fact that the deceased was a ticketless traveller and was not a bona fide passenger.

2.6 The Tribunal further took into consideration the benevolent object of the Act to compensate monetarily against the loss of the head of the family in a railway accident, and thereby did not entertain the contention respondent by the respondent Union. The Tribunal noticed that the claimant had given birth to baby boy just after three days of sad demise of her husband