The deceased was established as a bona fide passenger, making the Railway Administration strictly liable for compensation under Section 124A due to the untoward incident leading to his death.

Judgment :

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In the present appeal, the Appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 10.02.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Case No.283 of 2016 which dismissed 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.

ACTUAL ATRIX OF THE ASE

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

(i) On 9.10.2016, the deceased Anup Das was travelling from Khadagpur to Jajpur on the strength of valid journey ticket purchased from Khadagpur Railway Station by the Howrah- Chennai Express Train.

(ii) The Appellants submit that during the course of the journey, the compartment in which the deceased was travelling was overcrowded, and owing to a sudden jerk caused by the abrupt application of brakes coupled with the push and pull of fellow passengers, the deceased lost his balance, fell from the running train in Platform No.1 at Jajpur Road, as a result he was succumbed with injuries and died on the spot.

(iii) The appellants thereafter instituted Original Application No. 283 of 2016 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, seeking compensation under Section 124A of the RAILWAYS ACT , 1989 on account of the death of the deceased in the untoward incident.

(iv) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Learned Tribunal framed five issues for consideration and upon, detailed examination, concluded that the victim is not a bona fide passenger nor victim of any untoward incident. The claim application was accordingly dismissed.

(v) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10.01.2020 passed in the Original Application No. 15 of 2017 by the Railways Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, 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 submitted that the dismissal of the Original Application by the Railway Claims Tribunal, 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 mis-appreciation of the material facts, and is bad in law. Hence, the impugned judgment and order is liable to set aside.

(ii) The Appellants submit that the contemporaneous documentary evidence, particularly issued by the Police authorities, unequivocally demonstrate the deceased met with death as a direct consequence of an untoward incident occurring in the course of the journey. However, the Learned Tribunal, while adjudicating the matter, failed to appreciate these material pieces of evidence in their proper legal perspective and instead proceeded to render the impugned judgment on conjectural and presumptive reasoning. The Tribunal has further erred in placing unwarranted reliance upon the DRM Report, which, being a post-incident document prepared much belatedly subsequent to the occurrence and after institution of the claim application, cannot be accorded overriding evidentiary value over the contemporaneous police records.

(iii) The Learned Tribunal, without adverting to or taking judicial notice of the relevant facts, circumstances, and evidentiary materials available on record, has proceeded to erroneously reject the claim application on a wholly misconceived premise that the death of the deceased might have occurred under one of the exceptions engrafted in the proviso to Section 124A of the RAILWA