Passengers can establish bona fide status without a ticket if oral and circumstantial evidence supports travel claims; accidental falls from trains qualify as untoward incidents under the Railways Act, entitling claimants to compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Appellants, in the present appeal, have assailed the legality and propriety of the order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. No. 196 of 2013.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

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

(i) The husband of Appellant No.1 and the father of Appellant Nos.2 to 6, namely Gopal Nahak, along with his friend, first purchased a journey ticket from Berhampur to Palasa and travelled on the D.M.U. Train up to Palasa Railway Station. After alighting there, they purchased another ticket from Palasa to Kothavalasa and boarded the train. When the train commenced its journey, due to a sudden jerk, Gopal Nahak accidentally fell from the train at the platform of Palasa Railway Station and sustained multiple grievous injuries on vital parts of his body.

(ii) With the assistance of Railway personnel, the injured was shifted by ambulance to Palasa Hospital. Owing to his critical condition, he was thereafter referred to RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, where he succumbed to his injuries on 03.10.2012 during the course of treatment.

(iii) On 04.10.2012, the Palasa Government Railway Police registered U.D. Case No. 136 of 2012 on the basis of the death message, conducted inquest over the body, and forwarded it for post-mortem examination. Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted the Final Report concluding that the deceased had accidentally fallen from the DMU Train while travelling and died of the injuries sustained in the said accident.

(iv) The appellants, being the dependent family members of the deceased, filed Original Application No. 196 of 2013 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, seeking compensation for the untoward incident. The learned Tribunal, however, held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that the occurrence did not constitute an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the RAILWAYS ACT , 1989, and accordingly dismissed the Original Application.

(v) Aggrieved thereby, 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 learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence and materials on record in their proper perspective and, by proceeding on a misconception of facts, illegally dismissed the Original Application. The impugned order is arbitrary, perverse, vitiated by non-application of mind, and liable to be set aside.

(ii) The Appellants submitted that the evidence of the claimants, the DRM report, the Railway Police investigation, and the RPF/PSA Diary Entry all establish that the deceased was travelling in the DMU Train at the relevant time and accidentally fell, sustaining fatal injuries. The fall, therefore, constitutes an “untoward incident” entitling the appellants to compensation. The Tribunal erred in misinterpreting the definition of “untoward incident” under Section 124A of the RAILWAYS ACT , 1989.

(iii) The Appellants contended that the accidental fall of the deceased from the train stands admitted, and there is neither any pleading nor was any evidence to suggest that it was self-inflicted, or the result of any criminal act, intoxication, or insanity. Hence, the Railway cannot deny compensation. In order to buttress this argument, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India