The claimant must only prove the occurrence of an untoward incident; the absence of a ticket does not preclude compensation if circumstances suggest travel.

Judgment :

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In the present appeal, the Appellant challenge the judgment/ award dated 03.10.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for brevity) in O.A.(IIU) No.347 of 2014 dismissing her claim application for compensation from the Respondent/ Union of India on account of death of her late husband.

ACTUAL ATRIX OF THE ASE

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

(i) On 28.08.2014 while her husband was travelling by Pune-Howrah-Express train, accidently fell down from the running train between Tangarmunda –Bamri station due to impact of sudden jerks, as a result of which, he sustained injuries and died on the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid pleading the appellant claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest for the death of the deceased from the respondent.

(ii) Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Learned Tribunal framed five issues for consideration. After detailed examination, it concluded that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. And the cause of death was not due to any untoward incident and as such the incident is not covered under Section 123(c) read with Section 124A of the RAILWAYS ACT . Accordingly, the claim application was dismissed.

(iii) Aggrieved by the judgment/ award dated 03.10.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A.(IIU) No.347 of 2014, the appellant preferred this Appeal before this Court.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:

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

(i) The evidence on record reveals that while the Appellant’s husband was travelling as a bona fide passenger accidentally fell down from running train and died on the spot. The aforesaid aspect has not been considered by the learned Tribunal while deciding the issues and giving much weightage to the minor contradiction appearing in the evidence passed the impugned order by creating an imaginary story. In support of her case, the Appellant adduced oral evidence, police papers which suggested that the Appellant’s husband died due to falling down from running train. The DRM report also reveals that the deceased died due to falling down from running train. In such view of the matter, the learned Tribunal should allow the claim application of the Appellant.

(ii) Law is well settled that when a person met with an accident by falling down from the train and died, it is not possible for his LRs to produce the ticket or valid authority in the train and on that ground, the entitlement to get compensation cannot be denied.

(iii) Law is also well settled that claimant/appellant is not required to strictly prove that the untoward incident had happened because of wrongful act, negligent or default on the part of the Railway Administration. The only ground on which the Railway can escape or avoid its liability was that the injured/deceased had suffered because of his own criminal act. In the instant case, such a fact was neither pleaded nor did establish by the Respondent. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and against the settled position of law and liable to be interfered with.

(iv) There is no evidence on record to show that the Appellant’s husband died due to his own fault or he was in a state of intoxication or he was insane. His falling down from the train was, thus, clearly accidental.

(v) The learned Tribunal ha