In railway accident claims, initial burden of proof lies with claimants to show deceased was a bona fide passenger; burden shifts to Railways upon their demonstration of bona fides, with strict liability applying in compensation determinations.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellants/applicants challenging the judgment and award dated 10.10.2017 passed in O.A.II U 100 of 2014, on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench , thereby, the claim application filed by the appellants/applicants is dismissed.

3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

4. It is the case of the appellants/applicants that on 11.03.2014, the deceased, after having valid reserved journey ticket bearing PNR No.812-2095009, was travelling by train No.11021 from Dadar to Tirunelveli in coach No.S-1 and Berth No.31. When the aforesaid train had stopped at Hubli Railway Station on 12.03.2014, the deceased had alighted from the train and would have gone for taking the food and water bottle etc., However, in the meantime, the train has moved, due to which, the deceased had purchased another ticket bearing No.F-82482932 dated 12.03.2014 for Rs.125/- from Hubli hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short Railway Sation to Bengaluru city. When the deceased was travelling in the said train bearing No.16505-Gandhidham Express, due to jerk and jolt of the train, he lost control and balance has fell down from the train between Savanur and Karjagi Railway Station. Due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot.

5. Upon the claim petition filed by the appellants/applicants, the Tribunal dismissed the same on the reason that at the time of accident there were no eye witnesses witnessing the deceased falling down from the moving train; on this reason dismissed the claim application. Therefore, on this reason, the Tribunal suspected the death of the deceased in the railway accident.

6. Heard the arguments from both sides.

7. The applicants/appellants during the course of evidence produced the journey ticket and the statutory investigation report. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim application on the reason that one Madanlal Lohar, who is claims to be an eyewitness, was not examined. Therefore, on this reason, dismissed the claim application. It is not the case of the respondent/Railway authorities that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, the deceased was found to have a valid journey ticket. Just because, the eyewitness was not examined is not the ground for dismissing the claim application; in these types of cases, the evidence is to be assessed upon the preponderance of probabilities not by adopting a standard beyond reasonable doubt.

8. Upon considering the FIR, complaint, post mortem report and charge sheet all the documentary evidence proved the fact that the deceased had fallen down from the moving train and succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the approach of the Tribunal is not correct, which is found to be perverse and illegal. Hence, the claim application is liable to be allowed and accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Thus, by allowing the appeal filed by the applicants/applicants, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the appellants/applicants are entitled to compensation.

9. 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 app