ORDER

1. Since all three appeals arise from the judgment dated 23.12.2016 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, therefore, same are being decided by this common order.

2. The claimants have filed these appeal i.e. M.A. Nos. 657/17, 653/2017 and 655/2017 challenging the judgment dated 23.12.2016 passed in OA / IIu / BPL / 2012 / 0299, OA / IIu / BPL / 2012 / 0385 and OA / IIu / BPL / 2012 / 0251, respectively, by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal.

3. The concise account of the case are that on 16.4.2011, a group of 8 to10 persons went to Maihar for tonsure ceremony of Rajesh (son of appellant Ramaavtar). While returning on 17.4.2011, they boarded on train No.51672 (Satna-Itarsi Passenger) which was overcrowded and while the train started moving, the victims Loli Bai, Indramati and Rajesh fell down from the train and got trapped and ran over by another train passing at the very moment resulting into death of all three on the spot. By filing a written statement, the respondent-Railway denied the accident stating that indeed the deceased persons were crossing the railway lines, while they were hit by a passing through train. The written statement was also supported with the D.R.M. report.

4. After examining the evidence produced, the learned Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased persons were not boarded on a train and claimants have failed to prove the accident to be an untoward accident as defined U/s 123 (c) of the Railways Act and thus, the respondent- Railway is not liable to pay any compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that learned Claims Tribunal erred in holding that the claimants have failed to prove the accident to be an untoward accident whereas they have produced many evidence in support of their claims. They have satisfactorily proved that the deceased persons were boarded on a train having valid journey tickets. The burden lies upon the Railway to prove the contrary. The learned Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claims filed by the claimants.

6. On the other side, learned counsel for the Railways has argued that the learned Tribunal has correctly found that the deceased persons were not boarded on train No. 51672 as the train of said number does not pass through Maihar Railway Station. The train number 51674 (Satna-Itarsi passenger) train though passes through the Maihar Railway Station but on that day, it arrived on 6.34 pm and departed on 6.36 pm whereas the accident occurred at around 3.30 pm. He has also argued that indeed it is case of violation of railway rules. The deceased persons were crossing the railway lines unauthorizedly to reach to other platform and got hit by train No. 19051, therefore, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. He prays for dismissal of appeal.

7. Heard and perused the record.

8. After going through the record, however, the Railways has satisfactorily proved that the deceased persons were not boarded on train No.51672 as the same did not pass through the Maihar Railway Station on the date of accident, however, it is found undisputed that the deceased persons died by run over by train No. 19051 while crossing the railway lines. In the opinion of this Court, even if the deceased persons were crossing the railway tracks unauthorizedly to reach to other platform, the claim for compensation under section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, may still be maintainable; if it is established that the death occurred due to an “untoward incident” and that the railway administration failed in its statutory duty to ensure safety by preventing unauthorized access to the tracks. Contributory negligence or unauthorized entry alone does not automatically absolve the railway administration of liability, unless the case falls within the exceptions provided viz. suicide, self-inflicted injury, own criminal act, intoxication, or natural cause.

9. In the case at hand, the statement of Shyamlal Barman (Loco Pilot) shows that on 17.4.2011, he