Burden of proof rests with the Railway Administration to establish exclusions under the Railways Act for compensation claims; mere suspicion cannot deny claims without clear evidence.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. The appeal arises out of a judgment dated 06.09.2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A.No. 182 of 2017, whereby the claim application was dismissed.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

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

i. In O.A. No. 182 of 2017, the claimant/appellant Api Nahak soughtstatutory compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- (as claimed in the application, with interest stated therein) on account of the death of his son Mitu Nahak, stated to have occurred on 02.09.2015 in an incident involving the Train No. 16382, Cape-Mumbai Express.

ii. The claimant’s case before the Tribunal was that the deceased had allegedly purchased a passenger ticket and was travelling on 02.09.2015 from Kottayam Railway Station towards Tirupati Railway Station by the said train, and that he fell down from the running train near the southern side of Ernakulam North Over-Bridge, resulting in his death.

iii. It is pleaded that, in connection with the death, Central Police Station, Ernakulam registered Case No. 1578 dated 02.09.2015.

iv. The Railway Administration entered appearance in the Tribunal proceeding and contested the claim. Its pleaded defence was that the death was a case of suicidal run-over and that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger; it was further pleaded that the occurrence did not qualify as an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the RAILWAYS ACT , 1989.

v. Evidence was adduced on behalf of the claimants. The mother of the deceased filed an affidavit and was examined as A.W.1, and one Bibacha Nahak was examined as A.W.2; both were cross-examined by the Railway Administration.

vi. As pleaded in the appeal memorandum, the Railway Administration did not examine any witness before the Tribunal, including the alleged eye-witness referred to by the appellants as Babu Thomas, or any enquiry officer.

vii. The Tribunal framed issues and thereafter pronounced judgment on 06.09.2021, dismissing the claim application. The appellants contend that the dismissal was arrived at without adequate discussion of the evidence on record (this contention being a matter for consideration in the merits).

viii. Aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present appeal seeking setting aside of the Tribunal’s judgment dated 06.09.2021 and consequential reliefs. The appeal also contains a prayer for enhanced compensation/interest, which will be dealt with as per law at the stage of relief, if any.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

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

i. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment dated 06.09.2021 on the ground that the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application on mere presumptions and conjectures, without proper appreciation of the evidence adduced on record.

ii. It was contended that the Tribunal proceeded on an assumed probability that the death of the deceased was either suicidal or the result of a run-over