Non-recovery of ticket does not preclude finding of bona fide passenger if credible evidence exists; fall from running train is untoward incident regardless of deceased's negligence; delay in body discovery not conclusive.

JUDGMENT

CM APPL. 7466/2022 (Seeking condonation of delay of 141 days in filing the appeal)

1. By way of the present application, the applicant/ appellant seeks condonation of delay of 141 days in filing the appeal.

2. However, in the order dated 10.02.2022, it was observed that in view of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil). No. 3 of 2020 extending the period of limitation, there was no delay in filing the appeal.

3. Therefore, in view of the above, the present application has been rendered infructuous.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 22.03.2021 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(U)/DLI/71/2021 titled as “Smt. Dharamawati vs. Union of India”.

2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed by the appellant herein on the ground that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger, nor was the alleged incident an “untoward incident” as defined under the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the claim application, are that on 15.06.2018, one Bunty (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was travelling from Tughlakabad to Palwal by a local EMU train on the strength of a valid journey ticket. While the train was running between Ballabhgarh and Asaoti Railway Stations, the deceased, due to a jerk, fell from the train and sustained grievous injuries, to which, he succumbed at the spot.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment by contending that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that the incident in question was an “untoward incident” as defined under the Act. It is submitted that although the journey ticket was not recovered from the body of the deceased, the testimony of AW-2, Mahesh Kumar, the brother-in-law of the deceased establishes that the deceased undertook the journey on the strength of a valid ticket, which was purchased by AW-2 for him. It is further submitted that the finding of the Tribunal regarding the body having been found after 12 hours is misconceived, as the mere fact that the body

was noticed later does not discredit the case of accidental fall from the train. Learned counsel further emphasized that even as per the DRM report, the case of the Railways is that the deceased fell from a running train, though attributing the same to negligence, which is immaterial and that, such a fall squarely falls within the ambit of an “untoward incident”.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment by submitting that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as no ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased, and the dead body was found nearly 12 hours after the alleged fall, which renders the appellant’s version doubtful. It is further submitted that as per the statements recorded during investigation, including that of the brother of the deceased, the deceased was under mental stress due to lack of employment. Reliance is also placed on the inquest report to contend that the injuries sustained were consistent with the deceased having been run over by a train while crossing the railway track and not due to a fall from a running train.

6. This Court has heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material on record.

7. In the backdrop of the above facts, the two issues that arise for consideration are whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger and whether the alleged incident was an “untoward incident” as defined under the Act.

8. It is an admitted position that no journey ticket was recovered from the body of the deceased during jamatalashi. However, as per the settled law in Union of India vs. Rina Devi , ((2019) 3 SCC 572), the absence of recovery of a ticket does not negate the claim of the deceased being a bona