The burden of proving a person is not a bona fide passenger after an untoward incident rests on the Railway Administration; the mere absence of a journey ticket cannot defeat a claim for compensation if the accident is established.

Appeal Under Section_____against ordersTo set aside the order dated 09.01 2019 in OA II (U_) No.288/2010 on the file of the Honourable 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.J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 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.288 of 2010, dated 09.01.2020, 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, accompanied by his brother-in-law, went to Secunderabad Railway Station on the morning of 15.05.2010 to travel by Train No.2747 Guntur–Vikarabad Palnadu Express from Secunderabad to Sanathnagar. He purchased a second class journey ticket and boarded the said train in the presence of his brother-in-law. After the departure of the train, his brother-in-law left the railway station. While travelling, due to heavy rush of passengers and the jerks and jolts of the train, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down from the running train at Nature Cure Hospital Railway Station, between Platform No.2 and the train, and died due to the injuries sustained in the fall. The applicants have stated in Column No.7 of the O.A. that the journey ticket was lost in the accident as the clothes of the deceased were badly torn due to injuries. In support of their claim, they filed various documents including police records. Hence, the claim petition.

4. The respondent–Railway Administration resisted the claim by filing a written statement denying the averments made in the application and contending that the death of the deceased was not on account of an untoward incident. It was further contended that no journey ticket was found in the possession of the deceased and that the case is one of suicide and not an accidental fall as alleged. It was also contended that none had witnessed the accidental fall and that the nature of injuries was not consistent with a train accident. The respondent further asserted that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and sought dismissal of the O.A.

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 the enquiry, A.W.s 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 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 bona fide passenger has dismissed the claim application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came to be filed.

8. Heard Ms. N.S. Geetha Madhuri, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mr.J.U.M.V.Prasad, 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 bona fide passenger and also the deceased has not sustained injuries nor died due to an untoward incident.