When a death occurs on railway premises, the initial burden is on the claimants to show a nexus with train travel; once discharged, the onus shifts to the Railways to disprove bona fide passenger status, failing which compensation is payable for an untoward incident.

Appeal Under Section_____against ordersbegs to present this Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to this Honorable Court against the order made in OA II (U) No. 356 of 2014 dt 09.12.2021 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati bench at Guntur

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by The Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, at Guntur (in short ‘the learned Tribunal’) in O.A/II(u)/356/2014, dated 09.12.2021 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 cases are as follows:

On 09.02.2014, the deceased purchased a train journey ticket from Tenali to Nidubrolu and boarded Train No.67289 (Vijayawada–Ongole Passenger). He reached Tenali Railway Station accompanied by his relative. The said relative left for Guntur on receipt of a message. The deceased, thereafter, boarded the said train to proceed to Nidubrolu. While travelling by the said train, the deceased accidentally fell down at KM No.385/23-21 in between Tsundur and Modukur Railway Stations and died on the spot. Hence, the claim petition.

4. The respondent–Railways denied the averments made in the O.A. The respondent further denied and disputed the case put forth by the applicants that the deceased, while travelling in Train No.67289 with a valid journey ticket, accidentally fell down between Tsundur and Modukur Railway Stations and died on the spot. It was further contended that there was no eyewitness to the incident and, as per the inquest conducted by GRP, the deceased was found with an invalid season ticket at the place of the incident near the platform of Tsundur Railway Station. The respondent also submitted that there is no Train No.67289 Passenger as mentioned in the O.A., but there is a Train No.67298 (Vijayawada–Gudur Passenger) running between Vijayawada and Bitragunta Railway Stations. Hence, there was no fault or lapse on the part of the Railway Administration. The respondent prayed for dismissal of the O.A.

5. During enquiry, the Tribunal framed issues for determination would be:

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

2) Whether the Applicant(s) is/are dependent(s) of the deceased?

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

6. On behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 and A.W.2 were examined, and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, no oral evidence was adduced; however, Ex.R1/DRM report was marked.

7. The learned Tribunal, after hearing both sides, held that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger and dismissed the Claim Application. Assailing the same, the present C.M.A has to be filed.

8. Heard Mr.I.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.M.Srinivas, learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent.

9. During the 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 that the deceased had not sustained injuries due to an untoward incident. The learned Tribunal, without appreciating the applicability of the provisions of the Railways Act, simply dismissed the claim of the appellant. Therefore, the C.M.A. is liable to be allowed.

10. Learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent contended that the deceased was not in po