A passenger's status as bona fide is not automatically negated by the non-recovery of a journey ticket. When foundational facts regarding travel are established through official records and credible testimony, the burden of proof shifts, and minor inconsistencies in witness statements do not defeat the claim.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against the judgment dated 31.01.2024, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA (IIu) No. 180/2023 titled as “Mev Umrfaruk & Anr. vs. Union of India”.

2. Vide the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application primarily on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, despite holding that the incident in question constituted as an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123 (c) of 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 14.06.2022, one Mohd. Fahad Mev (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) had accompanied his brother, sister, brother-in-law and cousin to Alwar Railway Station, from where they were travelling to Ahmedabad by Train No. 12916 (Ashram Express). It is stated that while on the way to the railway station, the deceased expressed his intention to travel to along with them and accordingly, after reaching Alwar Railway Station, a second class journey ticket was purchased. Thereafter, after helping his relatives board the reserved coach, while the deceased was attempting to board the general compartment of the train, the train started moving, owing to which he lost balance and accidentally fell between the platform and the train compartment, resulting in fatal injuries and instantaneous death.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned judgment by contending that the Learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim application despite having already returned a categorical finding that the death of the deceased occurred in an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Act. It is submitted that the finding regarding absence of bona fide travel is based merely on non-recovery of the railway ticket from the body of the deceased and on conjectural conclusions drawn in the DRM report. It is further submitted that the contemporaneous official record and statements recorded during investigation clearly establish that the deceased met with the said accident while boarding the train. The oral testimonies of AW-1, Mev Umar Farukh and AW-2, Abdul Qadir sufficiently establish that the deceased was travelling along with them after purchasing a valid railway ticket which got lost during the accident.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supports the impugned judgment and contends that no railway ticket was recovered from the body of the deceased and therefore the deceased cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger. It is further submitted that as per the DRM report, there are inconsistencies in the statement of AW-2 and therefore the Tribunal rightly rejected the claim application.

6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. At the outset, it may be noted that the Learned Tribunal has already returned a categorical finding that the death of the deceased occurred in an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Act. The said finding was returned after considering the contemporaneous official record including the Station Master memo, Naksha Moka, statements of railway officials and the evidence led by the parties. The Tribunal specifically held that the deceased fell from the train while boarding the train at Alwar Railway Station