A deceased ticket holder is a bona fide passenger; liability to compensate arises from untoward incidents at railway stations.

JUDGMENT

Applicants in O.A.(IIu)/ERS/17/2020 on the files of the Railway Clams Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench have filed this appeal aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.11.2023 by which the application for compensation filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act was dismissed.

2. The appellants approached the Tribunal seeking compensation from the respondent for the death of late Mr.Aboobaker.V.K., husband of the 1^st appellant and the father of the 2^nd appellant. According to the appellants, on 1.9.2019, when the deceased was waiting for train at Aluva Railway Station with a valid ticket, an express train having no stoppage at Aluva station passed through the first platform and hit the deceased resulting in his death. Claiming that the death was an untoward incident, the appellants sought compensation.

3. The respondent Railway resisted the claim by contending that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger but a trespasser. According to the Railway he was hit by the train while crossing the railway track. Hence the Railway contended that the appellants were not eligible to get compensation. During trial the 1^st respondent was examined as AW1. Exts.A2 to A12 were marked on the side of the appellants. In this case also the Tribunal adopted the practice of marking the proof affidavit as a document, Ext A1, contrary to the relevant Rules. On the side of the respondent, RW1 and RW2 were examined and the DRM report was marked as Ext.R1.

4. On conclusion of evidence, the Tribunal analysed the case and passed the impugned order rejecting the application for compensation.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants Adv.Anwar.C.K. and the learned Central Government Counsel Adv.Vishnu Pradeep. I have also carefully perused the impugned judgment and the records.

6. The Tribunal rejected the application mainly for two reasons. It concluded that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and refused to accept the case of the applicants that the deceased had purchased a valid ticket and the same was recovered from his bag. Next, the Tribunal concluded that the deceased was crossing the Railway track at the time of the accident. Now I shall analyse whether the conclusions and findings of Tribunal are sustainable and whether any interference is called for in this appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the applicants had produced the valid ticket obtained by the deceased, that was recovered from his bag before the Tribunal and the Tribunal went wrong in disbelieving the same. He submitted that the ticket was handed over to the brother of the deceased by police after obtaining a kaichit from him. Along with the ticket some other articles were also handed over. The kaichit was produced before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal refused to rely on the same unjustly. He submitted that perusal of the ticket would show that the same was issued from Aluva Railway Station on the date of accident. He argued that the conclusions of the Tribunal on the aspect as to whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger or not are perverse and illegal. The learned counsel further submitted that the deceased was on Platform No.1 at the time of the accident, and this was spoken to by RW1, the only eyewitness. He pointed out that in the cross-examination of RW1, initially he stated that the deceased was on the platform and later in answer to another question by the counsel for the Railway he answered that the deceased was crossing the track. The learned counsel submitted that in the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased it can be presumed that he was on the platform and was