* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO 324/2019 MANARAJIYA & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood & Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Mukul Singh (CGSC) with Ms.

Ira Singh, Mr. Aryan Dhaka, and Ms.

Nandini Aggarwal, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 05.06.2017 passed by the Railways Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi in Case No. OA (IIu) 80/2016.

2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed by the appellants. The claim application came to be filed seeking death compensation in the context of a train accident statedly suffered by Sh. Ram Gopal Paw (hereinafter “deceased”) on 08.05.2015. It was claimed that the deceased undertook the train journey from Delhi to Bhiwani by Kalindi Express Train after purchasing a valid journey ticket, which somehow was lost at the time of the incident. It was further claimed that on account of a sudden jerk and push by the passengers from inside the compartment, the deceased accidentally fell down from running train at Old Delhi Railway Station itself and died on the spot.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though the Tribunal held the incident to be an “untoward incident”; it dismissed the claim by observing that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, as no journey ticket was found on his person.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has defended the impugned judgment.

5. The two primary issues that arose before the Tribunal were:-

i. Whether the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger of the train in question at the relevant time of the incident?

ii. Whether the death of the deceased has occurred in an untoward incident, as defined under Section 123 of the Railways Act?

6. While considering Issue No. 1, it was noted that the deceased was stated to be returning home to Bhiwani from Delhi after attending a Kisan Rally. The journey ticket claimed to have been purchased was not recovered at the time of the incident from the person of the deceased. Only one pocket diary and one old ticket from Gurgaon to Delhi were recovered. The Tribunal observed that in all probability, had the deceased purchased a journey ticket for travelling from Delhi to Bhiwani, the said ticket would have been kept in the same diary and would have been recovered. The Tribunal held the issue against the claimant.

7. While answering Issue No. 2, the Tribunal held that the deceased fell from the train at Old Delhi Railway Station. The said fact was admitted by the respondent and, therefore, Issue No. 2 was answered in the affirmative in favour of the claimant.

8. Pertinently, in support of his claim, the claimant had examined one Vijoo Krishnan. A perusal of his testimony would reveal that he deposed that on 03.05.2015, the deceased along with others had come to Delhi for attending a Kisan Rally. While the others went back, the deceased stayed in Delhi as he had some work to attend to in Gurgaon. On 07.05.2015, the deceased returned from Gurgaon to Delhi and stayed with the witness at his house. On 08.05.2015, he brought the deceased to Delhi Railway Station on his motorcycle and in his presence, the deceased had purchased a journey ticket for his journey from Delhi to Bhiwani. In cross-examination, he claimed that he was the Joint Secretary of Akhil Bhartiya Kisan Sabha and that the deceased was a worker of the said organisation. He further stated that the deceased was not related to him.

9. At this juncture, this Court is reminded of the fact that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the provision pertaining to compensation in Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and should accordingly receive a liberal and wider interpretation instead of a narrow and technical one. Further, the liability under Section 124A has been held to be strict.

10. Though the initial b