The burden of proof in railway accident claims lies with the railways to establish that the claimant was not a bona fide passenger, and compensation is determined based on applicable provisions at the time of the incident.

JUDGMENT :

(SYAM KUMAR V.M., J.)

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 13.10.2017 in OA (II-U) 51/2016 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT), Ernakulam Bench. Appellants were the applicants before the RCT. Respondent was the respondent therein. Parties are referred to according to their status before the RCT.

2. On 21.05.2016, Jacob, aged 51 years, while on his train journey from Ambalapuzha to his workplace Thiruvananthapuram, accidentally fell down from the train due to a heavy jerk when the train was near the Thakazhi railway gate and sustained serious injuries and succumbed to death. The train ticket and the bag of the deceased were lost in the accident. Applicants who are the wife and children of deceased Jacob, moved the RCT claiming Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation on account of the death of Jacob. The respondent filed a reply contending that no 'untoward incident' was reported on 21.05.2016. No incident as alleged had been reported by the railway administration to the local police and no records were available in any railway station about the incident. There is nothing to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger as nothing has been mentioned about the travel ticket in the inquest report. The respondents denied that the deceased was travelling by the train or that death had resulted from a fall from the train. They denied liability to pay any compensation. The RCT framed four issues and the parties proceeded to adduce evidence. PW1 was examined from the part of the applicants and documents A1 to A7 were marked. From their side the respondent, the DRM report was marked as Ext. R1. No oral evidence was adduced. After hearing both sides, the RCT dismissed the application on the ground that the applicants had failed to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this appeal is filed.

3. Heard Sri.V.K. Balachandran, Advocate for the appellants/ applicants and Sri.S.Biju, Advocate, SCGC for the respondent Railways.

4. The learned counsel for the applicants contended that the findings of the RCT are contrary to facts, law and evidence tendered. The conclusion arrived at by the RCT that the applicants failed to substantiate that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling on a valid ticket and had fallen from the train is erroneous. It had been the specific case of the appellants that the journey ticket purchased by the deceased had been lost in the accident, as the bag carried by him was also lost. The RCT had termed it as unusual for the deceased to travel to his place of work on a weekend noting that the accident happened on the night between a Saturday and Sunday. The evidence in the form of a statement tendered by two witnesses to the police that the deceased had told them that he was going to attend his Company Manager's daughter's engagement was overlooked. The DRM's report had been accepted by the RCT blindly without noting the fact that no one had been examined so as to substantiate any of the statements therein. The RCT overlooked the final report filed by the local police before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Alappuzha, wherein it had been specifically stated that the deceased had fallen down from the train and had sustained serious injuries and succumbed to it. The RCT had erroneously laid much stress on the minor variations in the statements given by the witnesses to the police and to the railway police force. RCT overlooked that there were no major contradictions or omissions in these said statements. The RCT had highlighted the minor contradictions and had doubted the claim put forth by the applicants. As regards the absence of travel ticket, the RCT had overlooked the trite and settled law that the burden is on the shoulders of the railways and its officials and they have to discharge the same by conducting appropriate inquiry into the cause of the incident. Reliance is placed on the judgments reported in Girija v. Union of India [ MFA (RCT) No.96 of 201