Under Section 124-A of the Railway Act, strict liability is imposed on railways for accidents resulting in death of bona fide passengers regardless of negligence.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned A.S.G.I. and Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent Eastern Railways.

2. I.A. No. 7659 of 2023 has been filed for condoning the delay of 486 days in filing the instant appeal.

3. It has been pointed out that the appellant is the father of the deceased and in preparation of preferring the instant appeal such delay has occurred and as such, the said delay may kindly be condoned.

4. Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Railway opposed the prayer on the ground that sufficient cause has not been made out to condone the said delay and in view of that the prayer for condonation of delay may kindly be rejected.

5. Considering that the claim of the appellant has been rejected by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal and in preparation of preferring the instant appeal such delay has occurred, this Court finds that sufficient ground has been made out to condone the said delay, and as such, the aforesaid delay in preferring the instant appeal is, hereby, condoned and consequently, the instant I.A. filed for condonation of such delay is allowed and disposed of.

6. This appeal has been preferred against the Award dated 19.06.2019 passed in Case No. O.A. (IIU)/RNC/67/2018 passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi whereby the claim of the appellants has been rejected by the learned Tribunal under the proviso of Section 124-A of the Railway (Amendment) Act, 1994.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant being father of the deceased namely Vishranjan Singh has filed the said case for compensation amount of Rs.8 lacs on account of death of his son for the injuries sustained by him in an accident that was caused due to negligence of the driver. He submits that the deceased was travelling as bonafide passenger on 08.11.2016 by boarding in Dhuriyan passenger train No.53038 DN along with his maternal cousin namely Pankaj Kumar (co-passenger) having valid ordinary ticket from Shivnarayanpur Station to Karmatola Station bearing Ticket no.99967 and cousin brother was going to Sahibganj station and having separate 2^nd class ordinary ticket vide ticket no.24991 from Shivanarayanpur Station to Sahebganj Station. He submits that due to rush the deceased was standing near toilet and due to jostling one another he fell down from the train and pursuant to that the said accident has taken place. He submits that even the railway tickets have been produced and in the form the correct ticket number is disclosed and the learned court only on the ground of producing the tickets at the time of hearing has not relied and has doubted the same and dismissed the claim application. He submits that there are other materials on record to suggest that the accident took place while travelling in the train and in view of that the said finding is not correct.

8. Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Eastern Railways has opposed the prayer and submits that in the FIR lodged by the brother a U.D case has been registered on statement of a person wherein it has been disclosed that the train was coming from the opposite side and they were present in the track and in view of that the accident took place. He submits that it is not a case of falling from the train and in view of that the learned court has rightly doubted the ticket which was produced later on. He submits that in light of Section 124-A of the I