The claimant bears the burden of proof to establish status as a bonafide passenger for compensation claims under the Railways Act.

JUDGMENT

24 .02.2022 Heard Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. B. Sarma, learned Counsel representing the respondent.

2. This is an appeal under Section 23 of the Railways Act, 1989 against the judgment and order dated 05.04.2018 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in O.A. IIu/61/2015 (Old) and OA (IIu)/GHY/2015/0061 (New).

3. On 29.7.2014, after purchasing a ticket, the deceased Jagadish Chauhan was going from Rangia to the State of Kerala in a train. He fell down from the running train at Kanjeod, Palakkad Station and died because of the injuries sustained.

4. On the basis of the said facts, Smti Rukmini Chauhan, the wife of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

5. The respondent contested the claim petition by stating that there were no eye witnesses to support the fact that the deceased died after falling down from a running train. The respondent also claimed that no railway ticket was recovered from the place of occurrence to prove that the deceased was actually travelling by that train.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the victim was a bonafide passenger?

(ii) Whether the victim died in an untoward incident?

(iii) Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation? If so, to what sum?

(sic.)

(iv) Relief and cost.

7. The Tribunal finally dismissed the claim of the appellant. The Tribunal held that the identity of the deceased was not proved nor it was proved that the deceased was a passenger within the meaning of Section 2 (29) of the Railways Act, 1989 , because no valid ticket was recovered to that effect.

8. The learned counsel Mr. Chauhan has pointed out that the Sub Inspector of the concerned Police Station issued death intimidation stating that Jagadish Chauhan had died after falling from a running train and one Voter Identity Card of the deceased was recovered. Mr. Chauhan has added that the finding of the Tribunal that the identity of the deceased was not established is not correct in view of the aforesaid fact.

9. Per contra, Mr. Sarma has submitted that under the law railway administration is obliged to pay compensation only if the death or injury was caused to a bonafide passenger in an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123 (c) of the Railways Act of 1989. According to Mr. Sarma, in this case, no railway ticket was recovered from the deceased and, therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased was a bonafide passenger having a valid ticket.

10. The learned counsel Mr. Sarma has submitted that the postmortem report of the deceased shows that the body of the deceased was torn into several parts and it is highly unlikely that a person falling from a running train would sustain such type of injuries.

11. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rina Devi , reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 , the learned counsel Mr. Sarma has submitted that the appellant has failed to discharge the initial burden of proof and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has correctly rejected the claim petition.

12. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides.

13. At this stage, Section 123 (c) and sub section 2 of the Railways Act, 1989 is relevant. It reads as under:

“123. Definitions.—In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,—

[(c) “untoward incident” means—

(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities