The absence of a valid ticket does not negate the status of a bona fide passenger, and the Railway Administration must prove any exceptions to liability under the Railways Act.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Appellants in the present appeal are challenging the dismissal of O.A./196/2017 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar, wherein they had claimed compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest @ 6% on account of the death of their son, Shreedhar Panigrahi, who allegedly fell from the Punjab Mail on 07.07.2013 near Bhadila Railway Station.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

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

(i) The appellants filed Original Application No.O.A./196/2017 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of their son, Shreedhar Panigrahi.

(ii) It was the case of the appellants that the deceased was travelling on the Punjab Mail, having purchased a ticket from Jhansi Railway Station to Jalgaon Railway Station, when he accidentally fell from the moving train near Bhadila Railway Station, and that his ticket was lost in the alleged accident.

(iii) The Respondent Railway contended that the deceased’s death did not constitute an untoward incident under Section 123(c)(2) of the RAILWAYS ACT , 1989, but fell within the exceptions enumerated in Section 124-A, including self-inflicted injury or the passenger’s own criminal act.

(iv) The Tribunal considered the pleadings of the parties, heard their arguments, and framed five issues for adjudication. It found that the appellants had failed to discharge the burden of proving that the deceased was a victim of an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the RAILWAYS ACT , 1989. The Tribunal further observed that the death may have arisen from causes falling within exceptions (a) to (c) of Section 124-A of the RAILWAYS ACT .

(v) Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the appellants were not entitled to compensation from the Railway Administration, and the issues were decided against them.

(vi) Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.08.2021 in Original Application No. O.A./196/2017 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, the appellants have 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 order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 31.08.2021, dismissing the Original Application, was based on a presumption that the deceased’s death was not an untoward incident and fell within exceptions (a) to (c) of Section 124-A of the RAILWAYS ACT , 1989, and that he was not a passenger. The Tribunal’s order rested on conjecture rather than evidence and asserted that the conclusion was illegal, perverse, and liable to be set aside.

(ii) The appellants submitted that the police report clearly stated that the deceased fell from the Punjab Mail near Bhadila Railway Station, and the final police report confirmed that he fell from the moving train. The appellants contended that, despite having the RPF enquiry report, the respondent did not produce the enquiry officer to support their case.

(iii) The appellants submitted that A.W.-1 deposed that the deceased had purchased a ticket and was travelling on 07.07.2013 from Jhansi to Jalgaon Railway Station, and that he was last contacted by his deceased son at about 5 PM while the train was at Bhopal. The appellants contended that the respondent failed to produce any witness, including the RPF enquiry officer or loco pilot, to support the case of suicide.

(iv) The appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in concluding that the incident was a cas