JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the impugned judgment dated 09.07.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application OA II(u) No. 61/2018, whereby the claim application filed by the appellant seeking injury compensation was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.12.2017, the appellant was travelling from Gurgaon to Delhi by the Janta Express Train on the strength of a valid journey ticket. It is the case of the appellant that when the train reached Patel Nagar Railway Station, he got down to get water and while attempting to re-board the train, he accidentally fell and sustained grievous injuries resulting in amputation of both his legs.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment by contending that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim despite having returned a categorical finding that the incident in question was an “untoward incident”. It is submitted that the finding regarding absence of bona fide travel is based merely on non-recovery of the ticket at the spot and on the DRM report, both of which have been erroneously treated as determinative. It is further submitted that the ticket stood duly verified by the Railways themselves and the contemporaneous record, including GD entry, station master memo and medical documents, clearly establish the occurrence of the incident in the course of train travel.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment by contending that no ticket was recovered from the appellant at the time of the incident and that the appellant was negligent while boarding the train. It is submitted that the DRM report indicates that the appellant was not a bona fide passenger and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim.

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

6. At the outset, it may be noted that the Tribunal has already returned a finding that the appellant suffered injuries in an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The said finding is premised on the contemporaneous record, including the General Diary entry, the station master memo and the medical record, which consistently record that on 23.12.2017, at Platform No. 2, Patel Nagar Railway Station, a person fell from a running train resulting in grievous injuries, including amputation of both lower limbs. The said occurrence stands further corroborated by the MLC and discharge summary prepared at Dr. RML Hospital, which recorded the case as a “railway track accident”. The Tribunal has, thus, recorded that the injuries were sustained as a result of an accidental fall from a running train and, on that basis, answered the issue relating to “untoward incident” in favour of the appellant. A perusal of the record further confirms that the occurrence of the incident is supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence, which has not been disputed by the respondent. The said finding, being based on reliable material and not having been assailed, has attained finality.

7. The controversy in the present appeal is thus confined to the issue as to whether the appellant was a bona fide passenger at the time of the incident.

8. The Tribunal has rejected the claim primarily on the ground that no journey ticket was recovered from the appellant at the spot and has drawn an adverse inference against him on that basis. In the present case, the appellant has not only established the occurrence of the incident, but has also placed on record material showing that a journey ticket bearing No. 31139829 was handed over and was subsequently verified by the Railway authorities.

9. The record pertaining to ticket verification clearly confirms its issuance on the date of the incident for the relevant journ