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 examining circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

BIPIN GUPTA, J.

1. The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Section 23 of Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987, by the applicants, challenging the impugned judgment dated 18.02.2022, passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, in Original Application No. OA-II-227/2017, whereby the applicants’ claim application, seeking compensation from the respondent, for the death of their son, alleged to have occurred in an untoward incident, has been dismissed.

2. Succinctly, facts of this appeal are, on fateful day 03.03.2017, son of the applicants was travelling by Mandore Express, having a valid 2^nd class railway journey ticket. When the train was passing through Rajgarh Railway Station, deceased Rajendra Kumar, due to sudden jerk of the train and pressure of co-passengers, accidentally fell down from the running train. On account of this, he suffered multiple grievous injuries, leading to his instant death. The Station Superintendent at Rajgarh informed the Station Superintendent at Alwar about this incident. Acting on the same, the Government Railway Police, Alwar reached the site of the incident and registered FIR, bearing No. 06/2017, under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Postmortem was conducted and the dead body of the deceased Rajendra Kumar was handed over to the family members for final rituals and thereafter, OA was filed claiming compensation.

3. The respondent in the reply contended that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, as he was not travelling on a valid ticket. It was further contended by respondent that the deceased did not suffer injuries due to the untoward incident, as his mutilated body was found on the track and therefore, the incident could not be considered as untoward incident, thus, prayed that the claim petition may be rejected.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

(i) Whether the deceased was travelling on a valid railway journey ticket and was a bonafide passenger of the train in question at the relevant time?

(ii) Whether the deceased met with an untoward incident due to fall from the passenger carrying train, suffered injuries and died as a result thereof and the present case is covered under the definition of Section 123(c) (2) read with 124A of the Railways Act, 1989?

(iii) Whether the applicants are the sole dependents of the deceased and are entitled to compensation as claimed under Para-16 of the claim application?

(iv) Relief?

5. In order to substantiate the pleadings made in the claim application, the applicants examined himself as AW-1 Ramesh Kumar and exhibited documents A-1 to A-11. The respondent, in defence, examined AW-1 Mohanlal Meena and AW-2 Mukesh Kumar and exhibited documents R-1 to R-5.

6. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the learned Tribunal, decided issue No. (i) and (ii) against the applicants, therefore, dismissed the claim application.

7. Hence, this civil miscellaneous appeal on behalf of the applicants.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim application. Despite, acknowledging in Paragraph 19 of the impugned judgment, that the applicants had discharged the initial burden of proof being a bonafide passenger, it nevertheless held, the deceased as not a bonafide passenger as well as not a case of untoward incident and wrongly rejected the claim application, merely on the fact that deceased body was found on the track.

9. He also argued that the learned Tribunal improperly relied on the DRM report, which was prepared