The court held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and the incident constituted an ‘untoward incident’ under the Railways Act, thus entitling the claimants to compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The instant First Appeal (FAO) has been filed by the Appellants assailing the award dated 12.12.2018 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. No.40 of 2017.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :

(a) The case of the Appellants, as narrated before the learned Tribunal, was that on 19.03.2016, while the deceased Judhistira Senapati was travelling as a bona fide passenger on the strength of a valid general class ticket bearing No. 05493186 dated 19.03.2016 from Nirakarpur to Bhubaneswar in an overcrowded compartment of the 1st DMU train, he accidentally fell between Nirakarpur and Tapang Railway Stations owing to the oscillation and violent jerk of the moving train and succumbed to his injuries on the spot.

(b) Based on the report of the SM/Tapang Railway Station, the G.R.P., Nirakarpur registered U.D. Case No. 09 of 2016 and undertook investigation into the matter.

(c) Asserting that the occurrence constituted an untoward incident, the applicants, who are the wife and children of the deceased and are the present Appellants, approached the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the Railway Administration.

(d) On receipt of notice, the Respondent entered appearance and filed its written statement. In the written statement, the Respondent denied the averments made in the claim application and asserted that the case was one of suicide, alleging that the deceased was run over and killed while trespassing on the railway track of the DN line at KM No. 480/22–24. On such pleadings, the Respondent prayed for dismissal of the claim.

(e) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues for determination.

(f) In support of their case, the Appellants examined two witnesses and produced documents such as the inquest report, post-mortem report, dead-body challan, train journey ticket and the certified copy of the statement of the witness. The Respondent did not examine any witness and relied solely on the DRM report.

(g) The learned Tribunal, upon hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, held that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor did the occurrence fall within the ambit of an ‘untoward incident’. Accordingly, the claim application was dismissed.

(h) Aggrieved by the award dated 12.12.2018 passed in O.A. No. 40 of 2017 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, the Appellants have preferred the present appeal.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

3. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

i. The Appellants contended that the impugned award passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal is illegal and liable to be set aside, as the findings recorded therein are against the weight of evidence on record.

ii. It was submitted that the journey ticket of the deceased was produced before the Tribunal and was not disputed by the Railway. Therefore, the finding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger is unsupported by the record, unsustainable, and liable to be set aside.

iii. It was further submitted that the dead body of the deceased was found on the railway track and was first noticed by the guard of the train, who issued a memo to the Station Master, Tapang. The Station Master thereafter lodged a written report before the G.R.P., Nirakarpur, on the basis of which U.D. Case No. 9 of