The absence of a railway ticket does not automatically disqualify a person from being a bonafide passenger; once the claimant discharges the initial burden of proof through an affidavit, the burden shifts to the Railways to prove the claimant was not a bonafide passenger.

Appeal Under Section_____against ordersto set-aside the order dated 03-04-2020 in O.A II (U) No. 215 of 2013 on the file of the Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal Amaravathi Bench, and consequently allow the appeal and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:-

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim application filed by the appellant/applicant in OA/II/u/215/2013 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati bench vide judgment dated 03.04.2020, 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.

It is the case of the applicant that on 25.12.2012, in the evening, he went to Hindupur railway station, purchased a second class train journey ticket to Anantapur and boarded train No.17604; enroute, when the applicant went near wash basin to wash his hands, he accidentally fell off the train due to sudden jerks and jolts as a result of which, both his legs were run over by the train. Immediately, the train stopped and the applicant was shifted to Puttaparti Super Specialty hospital and subsequently to Victoria hospital, Bangalore, where both his legs were amputated. Seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injury suffered by him due to the alleged untoward incident, the applicant filed an application before the Tribunal.

The respondent – South Central Railway contested the claim application by filing a written statement denying the averments of the applicants and stated that there is no eye witness to the alleged incident and that no train journey ticket was recovered from the applicant; that the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.

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

1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question and sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident?

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the claim compensation as prayed for and to what relief?

During the course of trial, the applicant got examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Except relying on Divisional Railway Manger‟s report, no witness was examined on behalf of the respondent.

The Tribunal, after going through the material available before it, came to a conclusion that the incident does not fall under the definition of „untoward incident‟ as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 and that the applicant was not a bonafide passenger. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the applicant by way of the impugned judgment, challenging which, the present appeal is filed.

Heard Ms. N.S. Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned Counsel for the respondent.

During hearing learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the learned Tribunal erroneously held that the appellant was not a bonafide passenger. The learned tribunal without appreciating the applicability of the provisions of the Railway Act, simply dismissed the claim of the appellant. Therefore the C.M.A is liable to be allowed.

Learned counsel for the Respondent would contend that the appellant was not possessing valid railway journey ticket at the time of accident. Therefore he cannot be termed as a bonafide passenger. The claim does not fall under Section 123(c) or Section 124-A of the Railways Act. Therefore there is no fault or lapse on the part of the railways in the alleged mishap; the Respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the appellant herein. The learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim made by the appellant after considering the submissions of respondent. Hence the C.M.A is liable to be dismissed.

Perused the