The burden of proof lies with claimants to establish the deceased as a bona fide passenger and that the death resulted from an untoward incident under the Railways Act, which was not met in this case.

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, NF Railway.

2. This is an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment and order dated 22.05.2019, passed by the learned Member, Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati in Claim Application No. O.A. IIu-18/2015.

3. The brief facts leading to his appeal is that on 18.12.2014, the deceased Fakaruddin Ali was coming from NJP to Guwahati Railway Station by UP Kanchanjanga Express Train with a valid Railway Ticket No. G-44992001. On the way when the said Train reached in between Falakata and Gumanihat Railway Station, the deceased accidentally fell down from the said running train due to heavy rush and commotion of passenger and died on the spot. In this connection, the police registered a case being NCB GRPS U/D Case No. 49/2014, dated 19.12.2014, and Post Mortem of the dead body was conducted in M.J.N. Hospital, Cooch Behar. The appellants, as applicants, had filed a claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati claiming compensation for the death of their son Fakaruddin Ali due to railway accident and the said case was registered as Claim Application No. O.A. IIu-18/2015. But, vide judgment and order dated 22.05.2019, the said application was dismissed by the learned Member, Railway Claims Tribunal.

4. On being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 22.05.2019, passed by the learned Member, Railway Claims Tribunal, the appellants had preferred the present appeal.

5. It is submitted Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellants, that the learned Member, Railway Claims Tribunal committed error in both facts and law and did not consider the evidence on record as well as the documents in its proper perspective and accordingly arrived at an erroneous decision which cause serious prejudice to the present appellants. It is held by the learned Tribunal that the applicants/appellants had failed to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and he died due to railway accident, however the learned Tribunal failed to consider that he was travelling in the said train and had a valid Railway Ticket which was also seized during investigation. The learned Tribunal erred in coming to the findings that the applicants/appellants have failed to prove that the deceased died in an ‘untoward incident’ and also failed to appreciate the evidence as well as the exhibits produced by the appellants/applicants.

6. Mr. Talukdar further submitted that the learned Tribunal miserably failed to take into consideration that the Railway Act being beneficial piece of legislation, benefits of doubts should be given in favour of the beneficiary/claimants. Thus, the judgment and order passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside and interference of this Court is necessary. He further submitted that the claim application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal solely on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, in spite of the fact that the appellants have already produced all the relevant documents along with Railway Tickets to show that their deceased son was a bona fide passenger who was travelling from NJP to Guwahati on the day of incident. He further submitted that in support of the claim application, the applicants/appellants had filed the certified copy of the Journey Ticket as A1, certified copy of seizure list as A2, certified copy of the dead body forwarding as A3 and the dependency certificate as A8 along with other documents, however in spite of producing those documents, the learned Tribunal dismissed the application only with some presumption and imaginary facts and ignored the fact that the deceased was a bona fide passenger who was travelling with a valid ticket on the day of incident. Initially the case was registered as UD Case, but on enquiry, it has come to the knowledge that the deceased