Compensation claims under the Railways Act for untoward incidents require proving bona fide passenger status; absence of valid tickets and unauthorized track presence negate claims.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The present First Appeal (FAO) has been filed by the appellant assailing the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, in O.A. No.291 of 2017, whereby the Original Application seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the death of her husband was dismissed.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

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

i. It is the case of the appellant that while her husband and son were travelling from Cuttack to Balasore by Gurudev Express after purchasing general tickets, they boarded a general compartment which was overcrowded. As no seats were available, they were standing near the door of the compartment.

ii. While the said train was passing through Soro Railway Station, the deceased fell from the running train due to jostling among co- passengers in the overcrowded compartment, sustained injuries and subsequently died.

iii. The appellant filed O.A. No. 291 of 2017 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the death of her husband. The said Original Application was initially dismissed, whereafter the appellant preferred FAO No. 142 of 2020 before this Court.

iv. By order dated 24.11.2022, this Court remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties.

v. Upon remand, the Tribunal reheard the matter and, by the impugned judgment dated 20.09.2023, dismissed the Original Application, holding that the incident did not constitute an untoward incident and that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.

vi. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.09.2023 passed by the Tribunal, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

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

i. The appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal dealt with the Original Application in a hyper-technical manner without properly appreciating the evidence on record and thereby arrived at an erroneous conclusion in dismissing the claim. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

ii. The appellant further contended that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the veracity of the evidence adduced by the claimant and instead placed undue reliance on the version of the respondent.

iii. The learned Tribunal, without properly appreciating the factual matrix, disbelieved the evidence adduced by the appellant despite the specific assertion in the Original Application that the appellant’s younger son was travelling along with the deceased. Instead, the learned Tribunal placed reliance on the statement of the Loco Pilot, who failed to produce the duty chart of the relevant day.

iv. The appellant further contended that the learned Tribunal erred in relying upon the statement of the Loco Pilot, who failed to assign any reason for not reporting the incident, as required under Rule 3 of the Railways Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, at the nearest railway station, namely, Soro Railway Station. The appellant submitted that the materials relied upon by the respondent appear to have been prepared as an afterthought.

v. The learned Tribunal accepted the version of the Loco Pilot despite his own statement that the train was detained near Soro Railway Station after the occurrence, whereas the matter was reported only a