The absence of a valid ticket does not negate a claim for compensation in cases of accidental death, where compelling evidence supports that the incident was not due to the deceased's fault.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. ROUTRAY, J.

1. Present appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 27^th September 2021 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in Case No.OA-IIU/85/2018, wherein the prayer of the Appellant (claimant) for compensation of death of his wife, namely, Goli Parida arising out of Railway accident, has been refused.

2. Heard Ms.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Pattanayak, learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent-Union of India.

3. The case of the claimant is that her wife, namely, Goli Parida while travelling in Berhampur-Bhubaneswar DMU passenger Train No.58412 from Huma to Balugaon Railway Station on 28^th January 2018, she accidently fell down at Balugaon Railway Station and died.

4. The claim application was filed on 7^th May 2018. Railways Authorities have denied the claim of Appellant and according to them, the deceased while trespassing the railway track at the time of incident on 28^th January 2018 was hit by DMJ-BTAP, a goods train at KM No.525/4-5 and died. As per the report prepared by DRM, the On- duty Gate Keeper reported the matter to the Senior Superintendent of Balugaon Railway Station on 28^th January 2018 that two women, aged about 55 years, while trace-passing the railway track illegally, were dashed by the Goods train and died. So, according to the contentions of Railways, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation since the deceased was neither a valid passenger of the train nor did she die due to any fault on the part of the Railway.

5. Admittedly, the claimant has examined himself as AW 1 and two other witnesses as AW 2 and 3 in support of his case. He further adduced the inquest report, postmortem examination report and the identity proof of the deceased before the Tribunal. The respondent- Railways on the other hand examined one witness as RW 1, who is a RPF personnel, and adduced the copy of the FIR and other police papers as well as the DRM’s statutory report.

6. The dead body of the deceased was found at KM No.525/4-5 in Balugaon Railway Station yard as mentioned in the inquest report. She was found sustaining with several bodily injuries consistent with the railway accident according to the postmortem examination report.

7. As per the postmortem examination report, the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage and all such injuries found on the body are consistent with falling track accident. It needs to be stated here that on 28^th January 2018, Khorda GRPS U.D.Case No.07/2018 was registered on the report of death of the deceased and the dead body was found lying between Track No.3 & 2 at Balugaon Railway Station.

8. The eyewitness Viz. AW 3 says in his evidence that, while he was also a passenger in the same train at the same time, saw the deceased accidentally falling from the running train before the stopping point of the train at Balugaon Railway Station due to sudden jerk and push of co-passengers. This evidence of AW 3 could not be rebutted in his cross-examination and on the other hand, the Railways have examined their sole witness as RW 1, a RPF personnel, who does not have any direct knowledge about the incident. Said RW 1 is the person who conducted inquiry on behalf of RPF regarding the accident. It is thus seen that when the statement of AW 3 is corroborating to the medical evidence, no direct evidence has been produced from the side of the Railways either to rebut or to contradict the evidence of AW 3 in any manner.

9. The finding of the Tribunal is entirely based on the enquiry report prepared by DRM without any reference to the evidences adduced on record. It is true that statutory inquiry report prepared by the DRM carri