Once a claimant establishes the death of a person on railway premises via affidavit, the burden of proof shifts to the Railways to prove the deceased was not a bonafide passenger; the mere absence of a ticket is insufficient to deny compensation for an untoward incident.

Appeal Under Section_____against ordersappellant begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Misc. Appeal, having been aggrieved by the Judgment dt. 16-7-2021 passed in O.A.II (U) No. 132 of 2013 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench at Guntur

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. P L RAO

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. K KRISHNA BUSHAN CHOWDARY(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:-

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim application filed by the appellant/applicant in OA II (U)No.132 of 2013 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati bench vide judgment dated 16.07.2021, this civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant/applicant.

For better appreciation of the case, the parties will be hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

The applicant is the mother of one Emandi Appa Rao (hereinafter referred to as „deceased‟). It is the case of the applicant that on 19.03.2013, the deceased went to Bondapalli village to invite his younger sister and brother in law to a festival to be performed in his village and while returning to Bobbili along with his brother in law by name Srisetty Krishna, they purchased a railway ticket from Gajapathi Nagaram railway station and boarded train No.58538; while travelling, after crossing Donkinavalasa railway station between KM No.417/10-12 posts, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down under the train and his body was cut into pieces and died on the spot. The applicant, being the mother of the deceased, filed an application before the Tribunal under Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124A and 125 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased for the alleged accidental death on 20.03.2013.

The application was opposed by the respondent – Union of India represented by General Manager, East Coast Railway, Bhuvaneswar, averring that there is no cause of action for the applicant to seek claim as the alleged incident does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(C) or Section 124A of the Indian Railway Act, 1989 and requested to dismiss the application.

Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the applicant(s) is/are dependent(s) of the deceased?

2. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question and died as a result of an untoward incident?

3. Whether applicant(s) is/are entitled to the compensation as claimed and to what relief?

During the course of trial, the applicant got examined herself as A.W.1 and the cousin of the deceased was examined as A.W.2. The applicant got marked Exs.A1 to A7. The respondent got marked the Divisional Railway Manager‟s report as Ex.R1, however, no oral evidence was adduced.

The Tribunal, after going through the material available before it, came to a conclusion that the manner in which the body of the deceased was found seems possible only when a person is hit and run over by a train and that the applicant has failed to prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and the deceased died due to an untoward incident. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application by way of the impugned judgment, aggrieved by which, the applicant has approached this Court by way of this appeal on the ground that though the brother in law of the deceased died pending trial, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that he has accompanied the deceased to railway station and witnessed the deceased purchasing a ticket to Bobbili and that the Tribunal ought to have observed that the applicant discharged her burden by way of adducing oral and documentary evidence and hence, it is for the Railways to prove the same.

Heard Sri. P.L. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. K. Krishna Bhushan Chowdary, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

During hearing learned