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 claims.

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 performing the train journey, an accident occurred due to heavy jerk and rush of the passengers in the train, as a result of which her father sustained severe injuries and died on the spot.

5. In this connection, a UD case bearing Rangia GRPS Case No. 16/2011 was registered. The In-charge of NalbariGRPS issued certificate dated 21.10.2007 stating therein the details of accident and also mentioning that the accident is suspected where the victim has fallen down from train and sustained severe injuries on his whole body and ultimately died on spot. It is also stated that the dead body of the victim was taken to Swahid Mukunda Kakati Civil Hospital,Nalbari on 01.10.2011 and thereafter, post-mortem was conducted.

6. The respondent contested the claim by filing written statement and denied the fact that it is a case of accidental fall of the victim from a running train. It was stated that as per the information received, an unknown male person aged above 50 years was found lying between line Nos. 1 and 2 at kilometer No. 344/2-3 between Nalbari to Ghagraparrailway stations and run over by some unknown train. The body of the victim was cut into several pieces and therefore, it was stated that the victim was neither a bona fide passenger nor died due to untoward incident involving a railway accident.

7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati bench in the aforesaid original application:-

i. “Whether the death of the deceased had occurred as a result of an untoward incident as defined under section 123(c) (2) of the railways act”?

ii. “Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger on the date of the incident?”

iii. “Whether the applicant is a sole dependent”?

iv. “Whether the applicant is entitled to any compensation”? “if so, to whatsum?”

v. “Relief and costs”?

8. In support of her claim, the present appellant had adduced her own evidence and exhibited certain documents.On the other hand, the respondent has produced the DRM report Rangia, which was marked as R-1. Ultimately, after considering the materials on record, the Railway Claims Tribunal decided all the issues against the applicant and dismissed her claim. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

9. Mr. G. Uddin, the learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the Railway Claims Tribu