1.

The present appeal is filed in terms of Section 23 of The

Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987² assailing the impugned order

dated 17.09.2018 passed by the Learned Railway Claims Tribunal,

Principal Bench, Delhi³, in claim application bearing No. OA (IIu)

No. 306/2017 (hereinafter referred to as the „claim application‟) under

section 16 of the learned RCT Act, titled „Smt. Resham & Ors. Vs.

Union of India‟, whereby the learned RCT dismissed the claim

application of the applicants (appellants herein).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2.

To put it briefly, the appellants before this Court are the legal

heirs of the deceased Shri Nitin Kumar, consisting of his wife, minor

1 Written submissions filed by appellants on 21.11.2023. No written submissions filed on behalf of

respondent.

2 RCT Act

3 RCT

Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD

KUMAR VATS

Signing Date:28.11.2023

19:42:46

Signature Not Verified

FAO 224/2019 Page 2 of 14

son and dependent parents. It is their case that the deceased was a

daily passenger having a valid MST⁴ No. 15703626 valid from

19.08.2017 to 18.09.2017. On the fateful day of the accident, i.e.,

16.09.2017, the deceased was travelling from Ghaziabad to Okhla by

train for his duty at Intex Phone Service Centre, and when the train

reached at Platform No.3, Tilak Bridge Railway Station, New Delhi,

he accidently fell down from the moving train and sustained serious/

grievous injuries all over his body leading to his death. Post-mortem

was conducted on the body of the deceased vide PMR No.823/2017 at

Maulana Azad Medical College & Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi

wherein opinion was expressed that the injuries were possibly

sustained in a railway accident. This sequence of events led to the

filing of the claim application by appellant/applicant under Section

16(1) read with Section 13 (1-A) of The RCT Act, and Section 124-A

of the Railways Act, 1989.

3.

Respondent Railways contested the claim application and

relying upon the DRM Report, it was stated that the deceased was not

a „bonafide passenger‟ of the train and that the incident occurred due

to negligent and careless act on the part of the deceased, as he trying

to de-board from a moving train.

4.

The

Commissioner

framed

the

following

issues

for

consideration:

“1.

Whether the deceased was a passenger of the train in

question at the relevant time of the incident?

2.

Whether the death of the deceased was on account of an

accidental fall from the train in question, amounting to an untoward

4 Monthly Season Ticket

Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD

KUMAR VATS

Signing Date:28.11.2023

19:42:46

Signature Not Verified

FAO 224/2019 Page 3 of 14

incident, as defined under Section 123(c), read with Section 124-A

of the Railways Act, 1989?

3.

Whether the applicants are the dependants of the deceased

within the meaning of Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989?

4.

To what amount of compensation, if any, are the applicants

entitled? and

5.

Relief, if any?”

5.

Perusal of the record shows that the learned RCT vide order

dated 07.06.2018, closed the evidence of the claimant/wife of the

deceased observing that she was not an eye witness and marked the

entire documents placed on the record as A-1 to A-23 as the same

were admitted. No evidence was led by the respondent either.

However, the learned RCT called upon the claimants to demonstrate

how the MST was valid to travel on Lucknow Mail assuming that it

was a superfast train, and no information was sought from the

respondent Railways. Eventually, learned RCT vide impugned order

dated 17.09.2018 held that although the deceased had died in an

„untoward incident‟ sustaining injuries on falling out of a moving

Lucknow Mail Express Train, it was held that MST was valid for “to

and fro” journey from Ghaziabad and Okhla via Old Delhi form

19.08.2017