For an accident claim involving railway travel, evidence of bona fide passenger status is critical in establishing liability.

JUDGMENT

Challenge in this appeal is against the judgment dated

12.08.2009 in O.A.No.OA(IIu)No.37 of 2008 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. Respondent filed the O.A. seeking compensation for the death of her husband who died as a result of injuries sustained in an untoward incident occurred on 08.09.2007 near Kumaranallur while he was travelling from Ernakulam to Kottayam. The deceased was admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam on 08.09.2007 and he passed away on 15.11.2007 while undergoing treatment. The respondent produced ticket issued on 08.09.2007 at 8.51 a.m. from Ernakulam South Railway Station for travelling from Ernakulam Junction to Kottayam recovered from the deceased, the Death Certificate, the Postmortem Certificate and the FIR and Final Report in Crime No.691 of 2007 of Gandhi Nagar Police Station, Kottayam before the Tribunal.

2. The appellant resisted the claim. According to the appellant the deceased was run over by Train No.6525 on 08.09.2007 near Kumaranallur. Mere production of the journey ticket did not mean that deceased has fallen from a train. The appellant further contended that according to the Police reports the incident occurred at 16.00 hrs on 08.09.2007 and no passenger train had passed through Kumaranallur after 12.45 hrs on that day. The ticket produced was a second-class ordinary ticket. Hence the appellant contended that the death was not on account of any untoward incident and it was not proved that the deceased was a bonafide passenger.

3. The learned Tribunal appreciated the evidence and allowed the application. The appellant was directed to pay a compensation of Rs.4 Lakhs with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the O.A. till payment.

4. Heard the learned Central Government Counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. The learned CGC contended that no reliable evidence was available to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. She further contended that the deceased was found lying near the railway track at Kumaranallur and there was no evidence to show that he fell down from a train. The learned CGC argued that as there was no evidence to show that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and died as a result of an untoward incident, the Tribunal was not correct in awarding the compensation.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent per contra submitted that the Tribunal analyzed the evidence in an appropriate manner and concluded that the respondent was entitled to receive compensation. He submitted that the deceased was found lying injured in the railway track near Kumaranallur. The deceased had gone to Ernakulam on 08.09.2007 and was on his way back. There is no dispute that a valid ticket was recovered from him. Hence the Railway cannot be heard to contend that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. The learned counsel pointed out that the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased would show that he had fallen from a running train and if the case was as contended by the Railway, a case of running over, then the nature of injuries would have been totally different. The learned counsel submitted that the conclusions of the Tribunal are therefore proper and not liable to be interfered with by this Court.

7. The materials brought on record by the claimant were sufficient to show that the deceased had gone to Ernakulam on 08.09.2007. The ticket produced would show that the same was issued from Ernakulam South Railway Station for travelling from Ernakulam to Kottayam on 08.09.2007. As rightly noted by the Tribunal, two trains passed from Ernakulam side to Kottayam around 04.00 p.m. Police reports would indicate that the deceased fell down from a passing tr