The Railway Administration is strictly liable for compensation when a verified bona fide passenger dies in an untoward incident, barring specific statutory exceptions; evidence of bona fide passengership need not rely solely on ticket recovery.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.

1. In the present appeal, the Appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, which dismissed the 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 21.09.2019, the deceased Adhikari Pradhan was travelling from Bolagarh to Khurda Road on the strength of valid journey ticket purchased from Bolagarh Railway Station bearing the No. UYA- 16228331 for travel up to Khurda Road by the Nayagarh–Khurda Passenger Train.

(ii) During the course of the journey the compartment was overcrowded, and due to sudden jerk caused by the application of brakes and the push and pull of passengers, the deceased lost his balance, fell from the running train at Bolagarh Railway Station, and died on the spot.

(iii) The appellants thereafter instituted Original Application No. 87 of 2021 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, though without imposing any cost.

(v) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15.03.2024 passed in the Original Application No. 87 of 2021 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 misappreciation of the material facts, and is bad in law. Hence, the impugned judgment and order is liable to set aside.

(ii) The Appellants contended that when several documents issued by the Police clearly establish the death of the deceased on account of the untoward incident, which occurred in the course of the journey and the reporting of the incident was done by the Station Master who further intimate the local police and the case was registered. The DRM Report also reveals that the train itself came to a halt due to the alarm chain being pulled. Without taking judicial notice of these circumstances, the rejection of the claim application on the ground that the death of the deceased could have arisen due to one of the exception to Section 124A of the Railway Act, 1989 and the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor a victim of any untoward incident, such findings are bad in law, perverse, unsustainable in law and is liable to be struck down.

(iii) The Appellants contended that the statements of the Train Guard was recorded during the course of the DRM’s inquiry reveal that the train in question was suddenly halted on account of the Alarm Chain being pulled due to the accidental of the victim in the Bolagarh Railway Station and wh