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 03.03.2020, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Application No. OA/II(u)/DLI/261/2019.

2. Vide the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the claim primarily on the ground that the incident in question was not an “untoward incident” within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and consequently, did not return any finding on the issue of bona fide travel.

3. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the claim application are that Tara Singh (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was a regular commuter travelling between Rohtak and Delhi for business purposes and was holding a valid Monthly Season Ticket (MST) for travel between Rohtak and Delhi. It was alleged that on 24.02.2016, during the period when railway operations stood disrupted owing to the Jat Reservation agitation, the deceased had reached Rohtak Railway Station for travelling towards Delhi. It was the appellants’ case that he tried to board the train but after some time, due to heavy rush in the train, he accidentally fell from the train in the Rohtak yard itself, resulting in his death.

4. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the claim application primarily on the ground that no passenger train movement was shown at the relevant time and therefore the appellants had failed to establish that the death occurred in an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are contrary to the contemporaneous material on record. It is submitted that the Tribunal selectively relied upon isolated portions of the DRM/RPF inquiry while completely ignoring the GRP proceedings, inquest report, jamatalashi proceedings and the recovery and verification of valid MST and other surrounding circumstances consistently establishing that the deceased had suffered a railway accident while undertaking a railway journey towards Delhi. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal wrongly treated absence of a scheduled passenger train entry in the TSR Register as conclusive proof against the appellants.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that there was no eyewitness to the occurrence and the inquiry proceedings concluded that the deceased became victim of his own negligence. It is argued that since no passenger train movement was reflected in the TSR Register, the appellants failed to prove occurrence of an untoward incident.

7. This Court has heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. The first question which requires consideration is whether the death of the deceased occurred in an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of Act.

9. The Tribunal answered the aforesaid issue against the appellants primarily on the reasoning that no scheduled passenger train movement was reflected in the TSR Register and therefore the version projected by the appellants regarding accidental fall from train could not be accepted. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid approach is contrary to the material available on record and proceeds upon an unduly narrow appreciation of evidence.

10. The contemporaneous official record itself establishes that the occurrence was a railway accident connected with railway movement. The Station Master memo dated 24.02.2016 records that information had been received from unknown passenger, that one dead body was lying near Line No.03 between Platform Nos.02 and 03 near the Train Lighting Office at Rohtak Railway Station. The inquest repo