The Railway Administration has strict liability under S.124A for passenger deaths unless proven otherwise; absence of a ticket does not negate bona fide passenger status.

1. This is an appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 29th January 2020, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, in Case No. OA(IIu) / NGP / 60/2018, whereby claim application filed by the wife of one Sahebrao, who purportedly died in an untoward incident while traveling from Chalisgaon to Nashik on 26th August 2016 came to be dismissed.

2. The brief facts are that Sahebrao Devchand Salve purportedly was traveling from Chalisgaon to Nashik Road by 51182 Bhusawal Devlali Passenger Train and fell down from the running train at K.M. No. 325/28-00 on up railway line between Chalisgaon to Hirapur and died sustaining serious injuries. It is claimed that the deceased was having a 2nd Class railway journey ticket from Chalisgaon to Nashik Road, but the same was lost in an untoward incident, and therefore, not recovered in the Panchanama. It is the case of the Appellants / Claimants that due to over crowding in the compartment, the deceased fell down from the running train and sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. It is submitted that under S.124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, the "Railways Act"), the Railway Administration is solely responsible for the accidental death of the Sahebrao. It is also alleged that the Railway Administration should also be held responsible for selling tickets in excess without considering the fact whether there is space for passengers in the train or not.

3. After the death of Sahebrao, the Appellant - wife along with other members of the family filed a claim application under S.16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 , before the Railway Claims Tribunal at Nagpur (for short, "Tribunal"), claiming a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

4. Ms. Sumesha Chaudhari, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants / Claimants would submit that it is undisputed that the incident by which the deceased met with his death was an untoward accident and according to her, the same was due to the negligence on the part of the Railway Administration. She would submit that therefore, the claim as prayed for should have been awarded as compensation in accordance with settled law. The learned counsel would submit that just because a ticket was not found on the deceased does not mean that he was not a passenger. She would submit that moreover, the Railway Administration has not been able to prove that the deceased was not a passenger. She would submit that there are several decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein it has been held that the initial onus is on the Railway Administration to prove that the deceased fell within the exceptions of S.124A of the Act of 1989 and not on the claimants. It is only once the burden is discharged that the onus shifts on the claimants to rebut the same, which occasion did not arise in this case as the initial burden was not discharged by the Railway Administration.

5. The learned counsel would submit that it is also settled law that just because a ticket is not found on the passenger, he cannot be held to be a passenger, who is not bona fide. The learned counsel would submit that basically there are two issues based on which the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the appellants / claimants. First is the issue of dependency, she would submit that this issue has been held in favour of the claimants, however, with respect to the issue of bona fide passenger, although AW - 2 - son of the deceased had purchased a ticket for his father and also boarded him on to the train, the Tribunal has rejected the claim of bona