The removal of strict evidence requirements in railway claims promotes access to justice for claimants asserting passenger status in accidents.

JUDGMENT

Applicant in O.A.No.26 of 2021 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam has filed this appeal aggrieved by rejection of the O.A. Applicant is the mother of Late Sri.Anilkumar C.K. As per the averments in the claim application, on 29.06.2020, the deceased was travelling in train No.128082, Janasatabdi Express, from Shoranur to Kozhikode. When the train left Feroke Station, the deceased was some how thrown out of the train and sustained severe injuries as a result of the fall and succumbed to the injuries. Body of the deceased was found near the Feroke Railway Bridge between Feroke and Kallayi Railway Stations. Body was sent to Government Medical College Hospital for post-mortem by local Police and Crime No.842/2020 was registered under Section 124 Cr.P.C.

2. According to the appellant, the deceased purchased online ticket for the travel and boarded the train at Shoranur Railway Station at about 7.20 p.m. on 29.06.2020. Applicant/claimant was examined as AW1. In her proof affidavit she stated that during the journey, the deceased made a phone conversation with his sister Anitha and her children and also with his friend Aneesh. She further stated that the facts regarding the cause of death was revealed in the investigation by Police. The deceased was a young Civil Engineer and was working in a construction firm in partnership. She produced the copy of the FIR in Crime No.842 of 2020 of Feroke Police Station and the final report prepared by the Sub-Inspector of Police of the Feroke Police Station. The inquest report was also produced. Death Certificate as well as post-mortem report were also produced. She was cross examined by the learned counsel for the Railway. However, nothing was brought out to discredit her version.

3. Another witness was examined by the Applicant/claimant. He is an auto driver. He, in his proof affidavit stated that, he dropped the deceased at Shoranur Railway Station on 29.06.2020, just ten minutes before the departure time of Janasatabdi Express. He was paid Rs.400/- as auto fair by the deceased. AW2 was also cross examined. However, nothing to totally discredit the evidence was brought out in the cross examination. No evidence was adduced from the side of the Railway. However, the DRM report was produced and is part of the records.

4. On conclusion of trial, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment holding that the applicant failed to prove that the deceased was either a bonafide passenger or he met with an untoward accident. Thus, the application was rejected.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondent Railway.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to the evidence of AW1 and AW2, as also the contents of DRM Report. He also made reference to the final report prepared by the Feroke Police. The learned counsel pointed out that, though ticket was not recovered, the same is not a reason to reject the case of the appellant that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. He pointed out that the accident occurred during the period when the COVID pandemic was prevailing and therefore, tickets were being purchased through online modes. Deceased had also purchased the ticket through online mode. However, his mobile phone was lost in the accident and hence the ticket could not be traced out. The learned counsel pointed out that the evidence of AW2 is sufficient to show that the deceased travelled by the Janasatabdi Express from Shoranur to Kozhikode on the fateful day. He also made extensive reference to the contents of the DRM report. He pointed out that the DRM report is an official document produced by the Railway