IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof upon the claimant to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and the necessity of producing and proving the Inquest Report are crucial legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 23 of the Railway Accident Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 (Tribunal) against the judgment dated 17.04.2012 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati in Original Claims Application No. OA/II-1/2008 (Old)/Claim Application No. OA (IIu) GHY/2008/0001 (New).

2. By the aforesaid judgment dated 17.04.2012, the claim was rejected. The projected case before the Tribunal was that the deceased-Abhajit Choudhury, son of the claimant, had purchased a ticket at Naharkotia and had boarded the 902 Dn Passenger to Borhat. However, due to commotion of the passengers inside the train, he fell down as a result of which, he had succumbed to his injuries. It is also stated that on the request of the family members, no post- mortem was done. Thereafter, the claim was lodged before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, however, vide the impugned judgment dated 17.04.2012 had rejected the claim and it is the legality and correctness of the said judgment which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

3. I have heard Shri J Mollah, learned counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Shri G Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Railways.

4. The records of the learned Tribunal which had been requisitioned have also been perused.

5. Shri Mollah, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, 1989 (Act) defines passengers and to come within the said definition, such person needs to have a valid pass or ticket. He has also referred to Section 55 of the said Act on the aspect of prohibition against travelling without pass or ticket. He submits that under the aforesaid provision, it is not possible for any person, either to enter the platform or board the train. In any case, he submits that the AW2 had deposed that he had accompanied the deceased to the Naharkotia Railway Station and saw the deceased purchasing a railway ticket for the 902 Dn Passenger Train. It is submitted that the observation of the learned Tribunal that AW2 is the brother of the deceased is not correct. The learned counsel for the appellant, accordingly submits that the burden of proof that the deceased was a bona fide passenger being duly discharged in accordance with law, there was no reason to reject the claim made by the claimant-appellant.

6. Shri Mollah, learned counsel for the appellant also criticizes the judgment wherein the learned Tribunal has come to a finding that it is practically impossible for a passenger to fall down and being run over by the same train. He submits that such presumption is without any materials on record and is not liable to be accepted. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the following case laws:

i) Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 527;

ii) Bandana Misra Vs. Union of India, 2017 ACJ 2447 (Calcutta);

iii) Agam Shanthamma Vs. Union of India, 2004 ACJ 713 (Andhra Pradesh).

7. The Case of Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra) has been cited to bring home the contention that the concerned Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and therefore, a liberal and wider interpretation is to be given.

8. In the Case of Bandana Misra (supra), the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court had made certain observations on the applicability of the personal knowledge of the Tribunal adjudicating a lis.

9. In the case of Agam Shanthamma (supra), the aspect of the burden of proof upon the Railways to prove that the deceased was a ticketless passenger has been highlighted. The learned counsel, accordingly submits that the rejection is not sustainable in law and accordingly is required to be interfered with.

10. Per contra, Shri Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Railways has submitted that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and there are no materials on record to come to a conclusion regarding the assertion made by the claimant that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. He submits that the only evidenc