Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Moriam Ivsa, D/o. Late Sania Lakra – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Represented By the General Manager, N.F.Railway – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
1 Heard Mr. G. Uddin, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel, N.F. Railway, representing the respondent.
2. This appeal, under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, has been preferred by the appellant, namely, Moriam Ivsa, impugning the judgment and order dated 19.07.2016, passed in Original Application No.IIu/78/2012 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, whereby the claim filed by the present appellant was dismissed.
3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that the present appellant had approached the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, by filing an original application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, claiming compensation on account of death of her father, Sania Lakra, in railway accident while travelling with valid journey tickets.
4. The claimant has stated in her original application that her father was a petty businessman who had to move from place to place for his business purpose. It is further stated that, on 13.09.2011, in between Nalbari and Ghagrapar Railway Station, when her father was perfor
Claimants must prove possession of a valid railway ticket at the time of an incident to receive compensation, as per Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. Discrepancies in evidence can weaken claim....
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....
The court affirmed the applicability of strict liability in railway accident claims, establishing entitlement to compensation under the Railway Act for the dependents of a passenger who suffered fata....
The mere absence of a journey ticket does not negate a claim of being a bona fide passenger under the Railways Act, as the initial burden lies on the claimants and shifts to the Railways to disprove ....
The court ruled that an accidental falling of a bona fide passenger from a train constitutes an 'untoward incident' under the Railways Act, mandating strict liability for compensation, irrespective o....
Point of Law : Mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing....
The absence of a ticket does not negate the status of a bona fide passenger, and initial burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish the passenger status, which the court confirmed through exam....
The absence of a ticket does not negate the presumption of a passenger's status, and the Railway is liable for compensation under section 124-A for untoward incidents.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
