JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 15.11.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA II(u) No. 56/2016.

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

3. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the claim application, are that on 27.11.2015, one Sh. Ankush Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was travelling from Saharanpur to Shamli by Train no. 14546 (DN Express) on the strength of a second-class journey ticket. It was the case of the appellants that upon the train reaching near Shamli Railway Station, due to heavy rush and jostling inside the compartment, the deceased accidentally fell from the running train and sustained grievous injuries, to which he succumbed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the impugned judgment contending that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim application by holding that the incident in question does not fall within the ambit of an “untoward incident”. It was submitted that the deceased had undertaken a lawful journey on the strength of a valid ticket, which was lost in the course of the accident, and that mere non-recovery of the ticket cannot be treated as conclusive against the claimants. It was further contended that the deceased, owing to heavy rush and jostling inside the compartment, accidentally fell from the running train, and thus, the case squarely falls within the scope of an “untoward incident”. Reliance was placed on the settled position in Union of India vs. Rina Devi¹(2019) 3 SCC 572 to contend that strict proof of ticket is not required once foundational facts are established.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim in view of the material on record. It was contended that no journey ticket was recovered during the jamatalashi of the deceased and the version of bona fide travel is not substantiated by any cogent material. It was further submitted that the contemporaneous railway record, including the statement of the loco pilot, DRM/RPF investigation report and other official documents, clearly establish that the deceased was not a victim of fall from a train, but had come on the railway track from the wrong side and was run over by the engine.

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

7. In the backdrop of the above facts, the two issues that arise for consideration before this Court are whether the injuries sustained by the deceased were on account of an “untoward incident”, and whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

8. A perusal of the material placed on record would show that the version set up by the appellants of an accidental fall from a running train rests primarily on the affidavit and testimony of one Deepak Malik (AW-2), who claims to be an eye-witness to the occurrence and stated that the deceased fell from the train due to a push from the crowd however, as also noted by the learned Tribunal, his version does not inspire confidence as it does not find support from the contemporaneous official record and, on the contrary, stands contradicted by the same. Notably, the said witness admits that no journey ticket has been produced and his presence itself is not corroborated by any independent material on record. His version that remains a bare assertion, unsupported by any contemporaneous document.

9. In contrast, the statement of Chaman Lal, loco pilot of Train No. 14546, recorded in the discharge of official duty and i