Claimants are entitled to compensation for death due to a railway accident despite a lack of eyewitnesses, based on strict liability principles.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.04.2018 passed in claim application No.O.A II U 105/2016 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, thereby the claim petition filed by the claimants was rejected.

2. It is the case of claimants that the claimants are the wife, son and father of the deceased. The deceased was working as a security guard at KSBCL. On 28.06.2015, the deceased as a bonafide passenger with a valid journey ticket bearing No.78976951 while travelling from Mandya to Bengaluru and when the train reached Nayandahalli Railway Station near Bengaluru, due to sudden jolt and jerk of the train, he accidentally fell down from the moving train and sustained fatal injuries to the head and other injuries and died on the spot. The claim petition filed by the claimants was rejected on the reason that there is no eye witness to the incident. Therefore, on this ground alone, the claim petition was dismissed.

3. The claimants have given evidence regarding death of the deceased in the accident. Though, the claimants are not eye witnesses, but from the other evidence, it is proved that the deceased died in the railway accident. Ex.A1 is the FIR registered by the police based on the message issued by Station Manager/E.Cabin/SBC who has stated that dead body of one male person lying on the track was found. Ex.A2 is the inquest panchanama, wherein panchas have recorded that they have recovered the items from the deceased including journey ticket along with other articles. Ex.A3 is the post-mortem report. Ex.A4 to Ex.A7 are the statement of wife, son, father and brother-in-law of the deceased respectively, wherein they have reiterated the same narration regarding the incident. Ex.A8 is the copy of computerized journal ticket.

Therefore, all these evidence on record conclusively proves the fact that the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling after purchasing the ticket and fell down from the moving train and died.

4. The reason given by the Tribunal that there are no eye witnesses of the incident is not the ground to reject the claim petition. This reasoning assigned by the Tribunal is unjustifiable. Therefore, the claimants have proved the fact that the deceased died in the railway accident when he was a bonafide passenger travelling after purchasing valid journey ticket. Therefore, it is proved that the death of the deceased is due to untoward incident and not a self inflicted injury. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed error in dismissing the claim petition.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DOLI RANI SAHA VS. UNION OF INDIA , [(2024) 9 SCC 656] in paragraph No.13 has held as under:

"13. From the recapitulation of the various judicial pronouncements leading to the present appeal, it can be seen that the primary issue is whether the deceased was travelling on the train in question. In Rina Deva (supra), a two-Judge Bench of this Court considered the question of the party on which the burden of proof will lie in cases where the body of the deceased is found on railway premises. This Court held that the initial burden would be on the claimant, which could be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts. Once the claimant did so, the burden would then shift to the Railways. Significantly, it also held that the mere absence of a ticket would not negate the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The relevant extract from the ruling of the Court is reproduced below:

"29. We thus hold t