JUDGMENT

1. This Miscellaneous Appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act has been filed against the judgment dated 30.8.2019 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, Bhopal, in case No. OA-IIu/BPL/122/2017, by which the claim filed by the appellants has been rejected on the ground that neither the deceased – Shubham Sihote was a bonafide passenger nor he met with an untoward accident.

2. The facts of the case are that on 3.1.2017, the dead body of Shubham Sihote was found on the down main line at Narsinghpur Railway Station. The Security Commissioner submitted a report accepting that the deceased had died because of fall from a running train. However, it was also mentioned in the report (Ex.R-1) that since no ticket was found, therefore the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.

3. The appellants filed a claim petition that the deceased after purchasing the ticket from Bhopal to Jabalpur came to Itarsi and from thereafter by changing the train, he was travelling in other train and he fell down from a running train at Railway Station Narsinghpur.

4. The respondent relied upon the report submitted by the Security Commissioner (Ex.R-1). In the said report, the following finding was given:

^^tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk ekeys ls ladfy nLrkostksa ls Li"V gS fd e`rd 'kqHke flgksrs fnukad 3@4-1-2017 dks jkf= esa xkM+h la[;k 11065 Mkmu iou ,DlÁsl ds njokts esa cSBdj ;k=k dj jgk FkkA ;k=k ds nkSjku fdehŒ uEcj 905@5 ij pyrh xkM+h ls fxjdj nq?kZVuk dk f'kdkj gqvk gSA e`rd ds ikl ;k=k djus lEca/kh dksbZ nLrkost ugha ik;s x;sA blfy;s e`rd dks jsy ;k=h ugha dgk tk ldrkA e`rd }kjk lqj{kk ds ekin.Mksa dh vogsyuk djus ds dkj.k og nq?kZVuk dk f'kdkj gqvk gSA blesa jsy Á'kklu dh dksbZ xyrh ugha ik;h xbZA e`rd Lo;a viuh ekSr dk ftEesnkj ik;k tkrk gSA vr% nkokdrkZ Jh jathr flgksrs }kjk e`rd Jh 'kqHke flgksrs ds lEca/k esa fd;k nkok nsus ;ksX; ugha gSA^^

5. Thus, the respondents in their in-house enquiry had also come to a conclusion that the deceased was traveling in Pawan Express and he fell down from a running train.

6. The Tribunal after considering the spot map has held that the dead body cannot be found in between the down and up track, but did not dealt with the DRM report filed by the respondents themselves.

7. Once the respondents themselves have inspected the spot and have given a specific finding that the deceased was travelling in Pawan Express and had fallen down from a running train, then this Court is of the considered opinion that the initial burden to prove that the deceased died in an untoward incident was discharged by the appellants. Furthermore, the respondents did not examine any witness in support of their case. They could have examined their witness to claim that the report submitted to DRM was erroneous but that was not done by the respondents.

8. Under these circumstances, the respondents by making oral submissions cannot disown the report submitted by them before the Claims Tribunal.

9. Under these circumstances, this Court of the considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly held that the deceased was not travelling in Pawan Express and did not died in an untoward incident. The next question for consideration is as to whether the deceased was bonafide passenger travelling with a validly issued ticket or not?

10. The appellants have examined Rahul Mehroliya, who in his affidavit had stated that Shubham Sihote had purchased the ticket of General Second Class in his presence. He has further stated that the deceased was to travel by Pathankot Express but since it was delayed, therefore Shubham Sihote changed his program and informed this witness that he would go to Itarsi by Pathankot Express and from Itarsi he would change the train to go to Jabalpur.

11. Rahul Mehroliya was cross-examined by the respondents. Not a single question was put to this witness with regard to purchase of ticket by Shubham Sihote. Thus, the evidence of Rahul Mehroliya with regard to purchase of ticket by the deceased – Shubham Sihote