The absence of a train ticket does not negate the status of a deceased as a bona fide passenger under the Railways Act, as the burden of proof can shift based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Karamjit Singh, J.

This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 18.12.2007 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (in short 'the Tribunal'), vide which the claim application filed by the appellants for grant of compensation was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the present case as alleged by the appellants are that appellant No.1 is widow and appellants No.2 to 4 are children while appellant No.5 is mother of deceased Jai Singh. That on 24.12.2002, at about 7:30 pm, the deceased aged about 40 years, purchased a passenger ticket from Subzi-Mandi Railway Station, Delhi to go to Sonipat and he boarded MEMU-7DPM Passenger Train and when the said train reached between Pole No.14/19 and Pole No.14/21, the deceased fell from the running train and sustained multiple injuries and died at the spot. The train ticket was misplaced at the time of aforesaid incident along with tiffin, handbag and some cash, which the passenger was carrying with him.

3. The claim petition was contested by respondent and written statement was filed on its behalf, wherein, it was pleaded that no such incident was reported by the Railway officials as has been alleged by the appellants. It was further pleaded that mere recovery of the dead body near the railway track is not sufficient to prove the alleged incident. It was further pleaded that no travelling ticket of the deceased was recovered from the place of incident and the fact that the same was misplaced or lost at the time of incident is totally false and it was pleaded that claim petition be dismissed.

4. The appellants filed replication controverting the averments made in the written statement.

5. On the pleading of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

i. Whether the deceased was a bona-fide passenger?

ii. Whether the incident in question falls within the ambit of Section 123(c) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act?

iii. Whether the applicants are the only dependents of deceased?

iv. To what amount of compensation, if any, the applicants are entitled?

v. Relief.

6. The appellants adduced evidence by way of affidavit of appellant No.1-Santosh, who appeared in the witness-box as AW-1 and also examined AW-2 Rishi Parkash and produced Inquest Report Ex.A1, application Ex.A2, site inspection report Ex.A3, memo with regard to belonging of the deceased Ex.A4, copy of ration card Ex.A5, school transfer certificate Ex.A6, school certificate Ex.A7, post-mortem report Ex.A8 and death certificate Ex.A9.

7. On the other hand the Railway Authorities examined RW-1 Surjan Singh, who was on duty as a guard in train No.7DPM on 24.12.2002.

8. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed by the appellants.

9. Being aggrieved the appellants have filed the present appeal.

10. I have heard the counsel for the parties.

11. The counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned order of the Tribunal has contended that the Tribunal disbelieved the testimonies of AW-1 and AW-2 on the ground that no traveling ticket was found from the place of incident and that the only injuries found were on the head of the deceased. The counsel for the appellants while referring the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court Union of India v. Rina Devi, ( 2019) 3 SCC 572 has contended that appellants could not be non-suited simply because the traveling ticket of the deceased was not found from the place of incident by the concerned police officials at the time of spot inspection. The counsel for the appellants has further contended that from the perusal of the testimony of AW-2 Rishi Parkash, it is evident that he gave lift to the deceased upto Subzi-Mandi Railway Station, Delhi and the deceased was having Rs.100/- with him and the borrowed Rs.10/- from him as the counter-clerk was not having loose change and then deceased purchased ordinary second class train ticket to go to Sonipat. The counsel for the appellants has fur