IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the absence of a ticket does not disqualify a deceased from being considered a bona fide passenger under the Railways Act.

ORDER :

(Duppala Venkata Ramana, J.) :

This appeal is filed Under section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1987 Act”) by the appellant/railways aggrieved by the judgment dated 16-4-2019 in O.A./No. IIu/2014/0240 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as “the RCT”) whereby, the claim application filed by the respondents/claimants filed under section 16 of the 1987 Act, passed an award of compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- on account of death of Bhimsen @ Ramesh Singh Rathore, who died in train accident while travelling in a train on 1-6-2013.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties referred to as they are arrayed before the RCT.

3. The facts of the case, as summarized in the impugned order as extracted below.

4. Smt. Rajkumari Rathore and Smt. Munni Bai and Panchu Rathore who are the wife and parents of the deceased have filed the present claim application praying compensation for the death of the deceased-Bhimsen @ Ramesh Singh Rathore on 1-6-2013 in an untoward incident. On 1-6-2013, the deceased was travelling from Anuppur to Bilaspur by Ajmer-Durg Express due to heavy crowd in the train the deceased was standing near the door due to push by passengers, the deceased unexpectedly fell down from the running train near Jaithhari Chhulha down home signal at around 2:30 p.m. due to which he sustained injuries and died on the spot.

5. On the same day, at about 2:55 p.m. the driver of the Train No. 18233 (Narmada Express) Shri S. K. Mishra gave a written memo to the Police Station, Jaithhari stated that the dead body was lying beside the track near Pole No. 856/06 which is in the Jaithhari and Chhulha station near down home signal.

6. Basing on the intimation, the Government Railway Police, Jaithhari registered a Marg No. 20/13 and dead body was sent to the Government Hospital Jaithhari and conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and handed over to his relatives.

7. On account of death of the deceased-Bhimsen @ Ramesh Singh Thakur, the wife and parents of the deceased filed a claim application before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-.

8. The respondent-Railways filed a written statement along with DRM’s report through Deputy Chief Commercial Manager wherein they have stated that the deceased was neither travelling in train nor fell down from any train. As no journey ticket was recovered from the possession of the deceased; as no entry about the incident in the station diary of Jaithhari, Railway Police Station, further averred that in its DRM’s report the incident happened on 1-6-2013, further averred that the train Ajmer-Durg Express has neither run on 1-6-2013 nor 13-6-2013, therefore, the South East Central Railway not liable to pay any compensation.

9. In view of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :

1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train in question at the time of occurrence of the alleged untoward incident ?

2. Whether the death of the deceased caused due to said alleged untoward incident as defined under section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989?

3. Whether the respondent Railway Administration is protected under section 124-A of Railways Act and is not liable to pay compensation to the applicants?

4. Whether the applicants is the legal dependent of the deceased to claim/receive the compensation, if any, granted? who else are the dependents ?

5. Relief and cost ?

10. In order to establish their claim at the time of inquiry, the first applicant/claimant, the wife of the deceased, examined as AW-1 and exhibits A-1 to A-8 marked on behalf of the claimants, Mr. R. S. Mishra, Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Anuppur examined as RW-1 and no documents marked on behalf of the respondent/Railways.

11. On appreciation of evidence of AW-1 and placing reliance on Ex. A-1 to A-8 and the evidence of RW-1, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fi