IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Sri Pintu Pal S/o Late Vijay Kumar Pal and ors – Appellants
Versus
Union of India Through General Manager, Eastern Railway - Respondent
M.A. No. 172 of 2022
Decided On : 07-11-2023
JUDGMENT :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 26.03.2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the claim application of the appellants has been dismissed.
2. Factual matrix of the case is that on 23.04.2018 at about 10 Hrs. the deceased, Vijay Kumar Paul has left home to meet his married daughter, Chetali Sen. In the evening, brother in-law of the deceased informed the applicant Pintu Pal that deceased has not reached the destination. It was informed that one male person has fell down from the running train in between Kaseetand and Vidyasagar. The applicant Pintu Pal along with other family members rushed to the spot. They found the dead body of the deceased lying outside the up track at K.M. 263/ 23-203/25. It is further alleged that Railway Protection Force also arrived there and the applicants identified the deceased. It is alleged that the deceased had purchased valid ticket for travelling through passenger train from Jamtara to Vidyasagar and boarded on Sealdah-Muzaffarpur Fast passenger train No. 53131 and due to overcrowding he fell down from the running train in between Kaseetand and Vidyasagar. On the basis of fardebeyan of son of deceased namely, Pintu Pal a U.D. case bearing U.D. Case No. 14 of 2018 dated 23.04.2018 was registered. Inquest report was prepared and after investigation final form was submitted by the police. It is alleged that deceased was a bonafide passenger of the aforesaid train and died in an untowards incident, therefore, compensation was claimed of Rs. 8,00,000/-(Eight Lakhs) with interest from the date of filing of the application i.e. 20.06.2018.
3. The learned tribunal after taking evidence of parties decided the main issues as to whether the claimant was a bondafide passenger and died to an “untowards incident” in the following terms:-
On cross-examination by the Counsel for the Respondent, the Applicant Sri Pintu Pal has mentioned that his father did not call him “regarding any over-crowd in train or never he was using mobile phone.” His answers in the cross-examination are contrary to the statement made under Para 4 of the Affidavit and under Para 5 of the claim application that his father had informed him over the phone that he had purchased a railway ticket, boarded the over-crowded train no. 53131 and was standing near the exit gate of the train due to lack of accommodation. In view of the above, it is not conclusively proved that the death was due to accidental fall from a running train. The bonafide of the passenger has also not been established.”
4. Learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha has submitted that the learned tribunal has taken hyper technical view beyond the weight of evidence available on record and arrived at written conclusion. It is fairly proved through cogent and reliable evidence both oral as well as documentary that the deceased was having a valid ticket of journey and he died in an untowar
The court affirmed that a passenger's absence of a ticket does not negate their status as a bonafide passenger, and defined 'untowards incident' liberally under the Railway Act.
The court established that minor discrepancies in documentation do not negate a claim for compensation under the Railways Act when substantial evidence supports the claim of an untoward incident.
The absence of a ticket does not negate a claim of being a bonafide passenger; the burden of proof lies with the Railways to disprove such claims.
The burden of proof lies on the Railway Administration to establish the deceased's status as a bona fide passenger, and the absence of a ticket does not necessarily negate this claim.
Accidental fall from running train constitutes untoward incident for bonafide passenger; affidavit discharges initial burden, shifting to railways on preponderance of probabilities; no-fault compensa....
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....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of claimants to compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 in case of an untoward incident, and the exceptions u....
Passengers can establish bona fide status without a ticket if oral and circumstantial evidence supports travel claims; accidental falls from trains qualify as untoward incidents under the Railways Ac....
The absence of a railway ticket does not negate a claim of being a bonafide passenger; the burden of proof shifts to the Railways once the claimant provides relevant evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.