JUDGMENT

Mr. Karamjit Singh, J. (Oral)

The present appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (in short 'the Act'), is directed against the order of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (in short 'the Tribunal') dated 17.11.2016, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants, who are parents of deceased Ravinder Singh Chauhan, has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case of the appellants are that deceased Ravinder Singh Chauhan was holding MST (Monthly Seasonal Ticket) and was travelling in a train No.54011 Delhi-Rewari, on 6.8.2012 and an untoward incident took place and Ravinder Singh Chauhan died in the area of Railway Station Patli.

3. The claim petition was contested by respondent and the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

i. Whether the deceased was bona-fide passenger of the train at the time of incident.

ii. Whether the incident is covered within ambit of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act.

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

iv. Relief.

4. The appellants adduced evidence by way of affidavit of Dalvir Singh Chauhan, father of the deceased and produced inquest report prepared by GRP, copy of MST and other documents.

5. On the other hand respondent produced affidavits of RW-1 Nitin Parik, Gaurd and RW-2, Mahesh Kumar, ASM/Gurugram along with DRMs inquiry report.

6. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellants.

7. The Tribunal came to said conclusion on the ground that neither the train number nor its name has been quoted by the appellants and even the departure time and the station from where the deceased boarded the train have not been mentioned in the pleadings. That MST shown to be recovered by the police along with identity card is relating to travel from Rohtak to New Delhi and as such the same was not valid to travel to Patli station, which is situated between Delhi Cantt. and Rewari. The Tribunal further observed that the position of the body as reported by memo shows the body lying on railway track, which is not possible in case of fall from a train. That RW-1, the guard of train No.54011 has deposed that no untoward incident had taken place at Patli station. Consequently issues No.1 and 2 were decided against the appellants.

8. However, the Tribunal while deciding issue No.3 held that appellants are the only dependents of deceased.

9. The counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned order has argued that sufficient material is there to establish that it was case of untoward incident, as the dead body was found on the railway track and further valid MST was recovered from the dead body of the deceased.

10. The counsel for the Railways on the other hand while supporting the impugned order has argued that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. It has been further contended that appellants cannot take any benefit of MST as the same was not relating to the route on which the deceased was alleged to be travelling when the incident had taken place.

11. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.

12. In the instant case, deceased-Ravinder Singh Chauan boarded train No.54011 from Delhi which was going to Rewari on 6.8.2012. He was having monthly seasonal ticket which was valid up to 28.8.2012. It is the claim of the appellant that Ravinder Singh Chauhan fell from running train at Railway Station Patli. In order to establish their claim, the appellants placed reliance upon death certificate Ex.AW1/1 of Ravinder Singh Chauhan, as per which, the deceased died at Railway Station Patli on 6.8.2012.