The deceased was a bona fide passenger and entitled to compensation. The Railways were held liable for the accident, and the claimants were entitled to a sum of Rs.4 lakhs along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the accident.

G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The present appeal, filed under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against the order of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench dated 24.01.2014, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants, who are the wife, father and minor daughter of the deceased, has been rejected.

2. The reasoning for the Tribunal to come to the said conclusion is that the deceased-Tilakraj was not having a valid travel document in the form of a ticket or a pass and nobody had seen him falling off the train on the evening of 08.04.2012 between Ambala Cantt & Mohri Railway Stations. Resultantly, it was held that the deceased was neither a victim of an untoward incident, as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Claims Act, 1989 nor was a passenger and a finding was recorded that he suffered the injuries due to his own negligent act, for which the Railways could not be held responsible. Under issue No.3, it was held that the appellant/claimants who are the widow, minor daughter and father, were the only dependents of the deceased but compensation was denied under issue No.4.

3. Counsel for the appellants has argued that sufficient material was there to show that it was a case of untoward incident and merely because the ticket was not recovered would not be sufficient to discard the case of the claimant/appellants as the body was found next to the track, regarding which there was no dispute. The deceased was not a resident of the said area, who was travelling from Kalka to Delhi in the Himalayan Queen Express and therefore, his accidental falling off would, thus, be covered under the provisions of untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) and merely because the ticket was not found, as such, would not absolve the Railways of the liability.

4. Counsel for the Railways, on the other hand, vehemently argued that the order was liable to be upheld which is well reasoned and justified and the findings which are recorded are not liable to be interfered with, since the jamatalasi report showed that no ticket had been recovered.

5. A perusal of the record would go no to show that the claim of the appellants specifically was that the deceased was a Driver in a private taxi, who was going to pick up his wife-appellant No.1 from Delhi where she had gone to see her ailing aunt. His brother-Sanju purchased a ticket from Kalka to Delhi and had given it to him and the deceased had boarded the train and there was heavy rush in the train. The deceased had fallen down in the intervening night of 08/09.04.2012 and died on the spot and the dead body remained lying unattended whole night and in the morning a message had been given to the Station Master, Ambala Cantt. Railway Station, who had issued a memo at 6.30 am and the GRP personnel reached the spot and prepared the report. Ticket and bag of clothes were not found and the legal heirs of the deceased were contacted through the contact number which was saved in the mobile diary.

6. The defence of the Railways was that no such untoward incident had happened and it was also denied that the deceased had boarded the train from Kalka to Delhi and he had fallen down between Mohri and Ambala Cantt. Railway Stations. It was admitted that the dead body was lying near track on 09.04.2012 near DRM office and on the side of the track, there was a residential colony and a purse and cash was recovered from the personal search but no ticket was recovered. It not being a case of passenger falling down from the train and not an untoward incident, resultantly, his bona fides as a passenger was also questioned.

7. It is pertinent to mention that there is no such allegation in the written statement also that the deceased was a resident of the said area or that he would have been entangled in the path of an on-coming train while trying to cross the tracks, which is one of the reasons apart from the report of the DRM given by the Tribunal to deny the cl