The court ruled that the appellants are entitled to compensation under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act for the death of a passenger due to an untoward incident, emphasizing a liberal interpretation of welfare legislation.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

The Trial Court Record has been received.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India/Eastern Railway.

3. This petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.7.2023 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench in Case No.OA(IIU) RNC/103/2019 (Checklist No.2907190016) in an application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, whereby the leraned Tribunal has been pleased to dismiss the claim application of the appellants seeking compensation amounting to Rs.8 lakhs along with interest from the date of filing of the application i.e. 12.07.2019 on account of the death of the deceased.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has erroneously come to the conclusion that in light of the Section 124-A of the Railways (Amendment) Act, 1994 that the appellants herein are not entitled for compensation. She submits that the deceased has left home in the morning of 04.02.2018 to go to his Sasural and was travelling from Jasidih Railway Sation to Vidyasagar Railway Station but when he did not reach his Sasural then the family members started searching for him and then they came to know about the said untoward incident and identified the body of the deceased and came to know that he died as a result of accidental fall from the train. In this regard a Fardbeyan was instituted by the brother of the deceased Prabhu Mandal on 04.02.2018 before the Railway Police at Madhupur. Pursuant to that Madhupur GRPS has registered a U.D Case No.05/2018 on 04.02.2018. She submits that the police has investigated the case and prepared the inquest in which on the basis of witnesses held that the deceased died due to accidental fall from the running train. She submits that the deceased was a bonafide passenger of Train No.63568 – Jhajha – Asansol Memu Passenger Train and he had purchased valid tickets to travel from Jasidih to Vidyasagar Railway Station. However, the same was lost during the said untoward incident. She submits that accidentally the deceased has fell down from the running train between electric pole k.m. 287/02 to 287/24 near Joramow Halt and succumbed to his injuries. She further submits that this fact has been corroborated in light of the police report in Madhupur P.S. Case No.04/18 dated 04.02.2018. She submits that the case of the deceased and all the appellants will come under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act which defines ‘untoward incident’. She then submits that The D.R.M. Report is there in the trial court record wherein without rejecting the police report on presumption it is mentioned that the death of the deceased was not an untoward incident as the brother of the deceased had said that the deceased was suffering from mental illness whereas the Fardbeyan of the said incident was reported by the brother of the deceased namely Prabhu Mondol. She submits that the learned court without appreciating all these facts, in its incorrect perspective has wrongly held that the memo the time is not legible and dispite of that the learned Tribunal has held that the timing was not tallying Jhajha – Asansol Memu Passenger Train. She submits that however in the inquest report the timing is at 3.30 whereas, the said train passes at 2.45. She submits that in view of the finding of the learned court is not correct. On this ground, she submits that the learned court has erroneously rejected the claim application of the appellants.

5. Per contra, Mrs. Nitu Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole respondent/ Railways submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the learned court has discussed the threadbare situation and has passed the said judgment and in view of that the appeal is fit to be dismissed. She draws the attention of the Court to the memo of recovery of body and submits that it is not legible but