The absence of a journey ticket does not negate a claim for compensation under the Railways Act; once prima facie evidence of being a bona fide passenger is established, the burden shifts to the Railway Administration to prove otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In the present appeal, the Appellant challenge the judgment and order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for brevity) in O.A.(IIU) No.74 of 2024 dismissing their claim application for compensation arising out of the death alleged to have occurred in an ‘untoward incident’ within the meaning of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

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

(i) On 22.12.2023, the deceased Sanjaya Lugun was travelling from Bamra (BMS) to Garposh (GPH) Railway Station by Train No. 18110, Itwari-Tata Express Train, due to push and pull of co- passengers, he lost his balance and accidentally fell from the running train near Garposh-TGM section, as a result he sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The deceased was a bona fide passenger and the ticket was lost in the accident.

(ii) The GRPS, Jharsuguda registered UD Case No. 56/2023 and investigated into the matter. The Police during the inquest recorded cause of death of the deceased to be fall down from running train, confirmed by final report, post-mortem report and other papers.

(iii) On the basis of the pleadings the Tribunal concluded that the victim died due to his own negligence and was not a bona fide passenger. The claim application was, accordingly, dismissed.

(iv) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24.01.2025 passed in O.A. No. 74 of 2024 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar bench, the Appellants preferred this 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 submitted that the dismissal of the Original Application by the Railway ClaimsTribunal, Bhubaneswar in respect of the alleged untoward incident resulting in the death of the deceased is against the weight of the evidences on record, suffers from misappreciation of the material facts, and is bad in law. Hence, the impugned judgment and order is liable to set aside.

(ii) The Appellants further contended that the Inquest Report, the Postmortem Report, and the Final Report, unanimously conclude that the death of the deceased was due to fall from the train. No cogent or contrary evidence has been adduced by the Railways to rebut these findings. It was urged that mere reliance on the DRM’s report, unsupported by any substantive proof, cannot from the sole basis for denying the claim.

(iii) The Appellant further contended that the deceased fell near LC No. 231 at KM No. 465/02 from the alleged train and thereafter, was removed to CHC Hospital, Garposh with the assistance of his elder brother, who was travelling with him , and RPF personnel by means of a 108 Ambulances, where doctor declared him dead.

(iv) The Appellants urged that there was an eye witness to the occurrence, namely, A.W.2, Karan Kugun, who deposed that on the date of the incident, he was travelling along with the deceased. Both had purchased journey tickets from Barma Railway Sation to travel up to Garposh Railway Station. During the course of the journey, the said witness categorically stated that he saw the deceased accidentally fall from the moving train, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries leading to his death.

(v) Upon weighing the evidence, it is submitted that the applicants have produced sufficient materials to estab