In railway accident claims, the initial burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish they were a bona fide passenger through relevant facts; once discharged, the burden shifts to the Railway Administration to rebut the claim, and the loss of a journey ticket does not automatically disentitle compensation.

Appeal Under Section_____against ordersaggrieved by the Judgment dt. 22-1-2019 passed in O.A.No. 95 of 2009 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench,

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the delay of 359 days in filing the above appeal, in the interest of justice and to pass such

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 22.01.2019 passed by The Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench (in short ‘the learned Tribunal’) in O.A.No.95 2009, the applicant has 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:

The applicant is the mother of the deceased. On 17.06.2008, the deceased, V. Ramamurthy, along with one Ravi Prasad, purchased a single journey ticket from Tirupati to Chittoor and boarded Train No.165 MEMU Passenger in a general compartment. The train was heavily crowded. While the train was passing between Poothalapattu and Chittoor Railway Stations, the deceased accidentally fell from the train at about 19:25 hours due to a jerk, sustained injuries, and succumbed to the same. The applicant claims that the journey ticket was lost during the incident. In support of her claim, she filed various documents, including police reports, and prayed for compensation. Hence, the claim petition.

4. The respondent–Railway Administration resisted the claim by filing a written statement, denying all the averments. It was contended that the deceased was not involved in any “untoward incident” and that no valid journey ticket was found in his possession. It was further contended that the death was not due to an accidental fall from the train but occurred due to some other cause. Accordingly, dismissal of the O.A. was sought.

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

1) Whether the application is maintianable?

2) Whether the applicant is dependent of the decased?

3) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of Train No.165 Passenger from Tirupathi to Chittoor on 17.06.2008? Whether deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train?

4) To what relief?

6. On behalf of the applicants, A.W.s 1 and 2 were examined, and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.s 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.R1 was marked.

7. Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal held that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger and that the death did not occur due to an untoward incident, and accordingly dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.

8. Heard Mr.P.L.Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.J.U.M.V.Prasad, learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Railways Act is a beneficial legislation and must be interpreted liberally, as held in Kunal Singh vs. Union of India. It is further contended that the applicant discharged the initial burden of proof through oral and documentary evidence, and in the absence of rebuttal evidence, the burden shifts to the Railways, as laid down in Rina Devi vs. Union of India . It is also contended that A.W.2’s evidence establishes that the deceased purchased a ticket and boarded the train, thereby proving that h