The burden of proof as to whether a deceased person was a bona fide passenger lies on the claimant; however, the mere absence of a journey ticket is not conclusive evidence to negate the claim, and the burden shifts to the Railways to prove otherwise once the death is proved.

Appeal Under Section_____against orderspleased to set-aside the order dated 01-08-2019 in O.A II (U) No.47 of 2011 on the file of the Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal Amaravathi Bench, and consequently allow the appeal and pass

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1.GEETHA MADHURI N S

Counsel for the Respondent:

1.M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

The Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T:

Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, Guntur (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), in OA II(u) No.47 of 2011, dated 01.08.2019, the applicants have preferred the present appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The deceased, Seetharambabu, while proceeding to visit his daughter at Visakhapatnam, was travelling by Bangalore–Bhubaneswar Prasanthi Express from Vijayawada on 04.02.2010. It is the case of the applicants that the deceased had purchased a valid journey ticket from Vijayawada to Visakhapatnam, boarded the said train, and informed his wife and daughter over phone regarding his journey and possession of the ticket. While travelling, he accidentally slipped and fell from the running train at Km.No.875/17 between Gopalapatnam and Visakhapatnam railway stations, sustained grievous injuries, and died on the spot. It is stated in Column No.7 of the O.A. that the journey ticket was lost in the accident. Hence, the applicants sought compensation before the Tribunal.

4. The respondent–Railway Administration resisted the claim by filing a written statement, denying all the averments made in the application. It was contended that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, as no journey ticket was found in his possession, though a pocket diary containing phone numbers was recovered. It was further contended that the death was not due to an untoward incident as defined under the Railways Act, and therefore, the applicants were put to strict proof of their claim. Accordingly, dismissal of the O.A. was sought.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the applicants are dependents 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 the Applicants are entitled to the compensation as claimed and to what relief?

6. During enquiry, the 1st applicant was examined as A.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the Respondent, no oral evidence was adduced; however, the Divisional Railway Manager’s report was marked as Ex.R1.

7. The learned Tribunal, upon consideration of the material on record and after hearing on both sides, held that the deceased was not proved to be a bonafide passenger has dismissed the claim application. Challenging the same, the present C.M.A came to be filed.

8. Heard Ms. N.S. Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel for the Appellants and learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent.

9. During hearing learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the learned Tribunal erroneously held that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and also the deceased has not sustained injuries nor died due to an untoward incident. The learned tribunal without appreciating the applicability of the provisions of the Railway Act, simply dismissed the claim of the appellants. Therefore the C.M.A is liable to be allowed.

10. Learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent would contend that the deceased was not possessing valid railway jou