The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to compensation under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and the Railways Act, 1989, based on the definition of untoward incidents and relevant compensation rules.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.

1. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.

Through this appeal, the appellants assail the decision dated 1.3.2016 rendered by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in Case No. OA-II/156/2014 by which the claim application of the applicants filed under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 has been dismissed.

Briefly stating, the case of the claimants-appellants is that the deceased, who was husband of the applicant-appellant No. 1, was working in a factory at Panipat. He started his journey from his village to Panipat by boarding a train from Devriya Sadar Railway Station on 13.4.2014. On 14.4.2014, due to heavy rush and sudden jerk of the train, the deceased fell down from the train at KM No. 86/16-18 in between the Railway Stations Diwana and Panipat and died on the spot.

2. In view of the aforesaid accident the applicants-claimants being widow, minor son and daughter, and father of the deceased claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000.

As usual, the Railways contested the claim of the applicants by filing a written statement taking a stand that the victim was not a bona fide passenger and the accident would not come within the ambit of the definition of untoward incident as envisaged under section 123 (c)(2) read with section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'). Since a railway ticket was found from the dead body, a stand was also taken by the Railways that the ticket was planted one as no train number and name is printed on ticket.

3. On consideration of the rival pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:

"(1) Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of train at the time of incident?

(2) Whether the alleged incident is covered within the ambit of section 123(c)(2) read with section 124-A of the Railways Act?

(3) Whether the applicant(s) is/are the sole dependant(s) of the deceased?

(4) Relief."

4. The issue Nos. 1 and 2, being intertwined, were taken up together for consideration by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal has rejected the claim of the claimants-applicants on the ground that though as per the case of the claimants the deceased was travelling by a train on Up track from Devriya to Panipat but his body was found lying outside the Down track and that too not in between the Down track but after the Down track, therefore, it cannot be held that deceased accidentally fell down from the train while travelling from Devriya to Panipat.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has made gross error in non-suiting the appellants on the aforesaid ground as a ticket was also found from the pocket and there is no explanation as to how the dead body was found beside the railway track being the Down track or Up track.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Railways has fully supported the impugned decision of the Tribunal saying that since body was found after the Down track, it would not be possible that the same was due to fall from the train which was running on the Up track.

7. On consideration of rival contentions, this court is of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Tribunal and the decision based on the aforesaid findings suffer from the vice of gross errors. It is admitted position that a ticket from Devriya to Panipat was found from the dead body of the deceased. In the written statement, as usual, the Railways has taken a stand that the alleged ticket is planted one just to extract money from the respondent Railways and that was yet to be proved, verified and linked with the journey of the deceased. It is intriguing as to how, without any proper verification, such stand could have been taken by the Railways in the written statement. The Railways had to eat their own words when it came up in the DRM report that the ticket was genuine and was issued from Devriya