JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, against the Judgement dated 08.12.2015 and made in O.A.(II-U) 356/2014 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.)

1. The applicant before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai is the appellant before this Court. The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of her application seeking compensation for the death of her mother in an alleged Train accident.

2. It is the case of the appellant that her mother Raniammal, aged about 73 years had travelled in a Train from Chennai to Avadi and had accidentally fallen down from the running Train between Vyasarpadi and Perambur Railway Stations. The said Raniammal had sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

3. The appellant had claimed a total compensation of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of application till the date of the payment together with costs. The appellant had stated that the journey ticket had been lost and that her mother was a Cooley. The appellant had described the case as an “untoward incident”.

4. The respondent Railways had filed their reply statement, in which they had submitted that it is not the case of the injury due to falling of the Train but a case of being hit by EMU Train, while the deceased was walking along side the Perambur Railway Station. The respondent had submitted that this conclusion was arrived at after perusing the DRM's report based upon the enquiry held by the Police.

5. The Railways would further submit that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger as there was no ticket found on the person of the deceased. The Railways would submit that the Inquest report and final report prepared by the Police appears to be contrary to the true facts. They therefore sought for the dismissal of the application.

6. The Tribunal below had formulated three issues on perusing the pleadings on either side. The issues are as follows:

“1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger as alleged?

2. Was there any untoward incident on 07.03.2014 as defined under Section 123 ( c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989 as alleged?

3. Whether the applicant is entitled for the compensation as claimed and other relief if any?”

7. The appellant had examined herself as A.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 were marked on her side. On the side of the respondent, the DRM's report has been filed.

8. The Tribunal had ultimately dismissed the application by stating that the appellant herein had failed to discharge the initial burden of proving that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant is before this Court.

9. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that from the Inquest report submitted by the Perambur Railway Police, done in the presence of respectable persons around the scene of accident would clearly indicate that the accident had occurred while the deceased was travelling in a Train from Chennai towards Avadi and had accidentally fallen between Vyasarpadi and Perambur Railway Stations.

10. The learned counsel would further submit that the FIR which was given by the Station Master in which it has been stated that the deceased had died on account of her being run over by the unit Train has not been proved by examining the Station Master as a witness on the side of the respondent to prove the statement made by him in the FIR.

11. The learned counsel would also draw the Court's attention to the final report submitted by the Tamil Nadu Police, where it is opined that the said Raniammal had died on account of accidentally fallen from a running Train and the injury sustained was a grievous Head injury. 12. The learned counsel would draw the attention of the Court to the Judgement reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 - Union of India Vs. Rina Devi, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the mere absence of the ticket on the person of the