Point of law: Mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona-fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona-fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This is an appeal by the Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railways from a judgment and order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, in Case No. OA/II/U/384/2013, Harish Chandra Tiwari vs. Union of India, awarding compensation to the claimant-respondent on account of his father's death in a railway accident.

2. The claimant, Harish Chandra Tiwari, instituted proceedings under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 with allegations that on 17.03.2011, his father, Ram Prasad Tiwari, died in a railway accident, while travelling on board the Ganga Gomti Express from Lucknow to Prayag. It was pleaded by the claimant that his father boarded the Ganga Gomti Express at Lucknow with Prayag as the destination on a Second Class ticket, on 17.03.2011. As the train was moving near the Up Advance Signal at the Lalgopalganj Railway Station, the deceased suddenly fell off the train. In consequence of the injuries sustained in the accident, Ram Prasad Tiwari died. The petitioner filed a written statement, wholesomely denying the respondent's claim. The claim was particularly resisted on the plea that the deceased was neither travelling on the train in question nor did he suffer injury in consequence of a railway accident. It was averred that the claim is baseless and founded on concocted facts. The petitioner pleaded that the claim was barred by Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.

3. On the pleadings of parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the deceased was a bona-fide passenger on board the train in question?

(ii) Whether the accident resulting in the deceased's death fell within the definition of an unexpected incident within the meaning of Section 123(c)(ii) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989?

(iii) Who are the dependents of the deceased?

(iv) To what relief is the claimant entitled?

4. The claimant filed his affidavit in support of the claim, testifying as AW-1. Another affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar was filed, who deposed as AW-2. Documentary evidence comprising photostat copies of the Station Master's memo, the Panchnama, Police Form No. 13, Police Form No. 379, the Postmortem Report, the Final Report put in by the Police and the Voter ID Card was filed. The petitioner, by way of documentary evidence, placed a copy of the Divisional Railway Manager's report regarding the accident. Issue nos. 1 and 2 were decided together by the Tribunal, holding that the deceased was a bona-fide passenger on board the Ganga Gomti Express train. It was further held that the deceased died in consequence of a fall that he had from the train, that occurred due to a sudden jerk, as the deceased was emerging from the toilet. The accident occurred on 17.03.2011 at 09:45 p.m. near the Up Advance Signal of the Lalgopalganj Railway Station. It was held that there was no evidence about the deceased sustaining injuries on account of being run over by a train or a self-inflicted injury or one sustained as a result of criminal negligence. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were decided in favour of the claimant and against the petitioner. The Tribunal held that the claimant was the deceased's son, drawing that inference from the Voter Id Card. He was held entitled to dependency, in view of provisions of Section 123B of the Railways Act, 1989. The claimant was held entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 8 lacs, as the accident occurred prior to 01.01.2017, but, with the award being pronounced after that date, where higher of the two compensations would be that to which the claimant was entitled on the date of award, compared to his entitlement on the date of accident with the accrued interest. To adopt this principle of quantification, the Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572.

5. Heard Mr. Mahendra Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dhiraj Chaurasai, learned Counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent.

6