JUDGEMENT

This order of mine would deal with an Application filed under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with section 124-A, 125 & 123 (c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 wherein Applicants prayed for an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- as compensation on account of alleged death of RajeshKumar S/o Brajbhushan Singh by caste Sharma, aged 46 years (hereinafter referred to as „deceased‟) in an alleged untoward incident, on the ground that they are the dependents of the deceased.

2. It is the case of Applicants that, on 16.08.2021 the deceased went to receive his relative at Vatva station but he didn‟t come back home. He died after being hit by a train and was found lying on the line no.2 of Vatva station and had collusion with a train that was passing through Vatva station. The deceased sustained serious injuries resulting into his death. The Applicants being dependents are entitled to the compensation.

3. The Respondent Railway Administration has contested the claim of the Applicants by filing the written statement along with the DRM Report, wherein apart from denying all the averments, it is contended; that as per certified letter by CBS-Vatva, no Platform ticket had been issued between 00:00 hrs. to 07:05 hrs. on 16.08.2021; that dead body of the deceased was found at common loop line of Platform no.02 of Vatva station at km.no. 487/2281-2283 in cut off situation (decapitated state); that such situation may arise only in cases wherein the person tries to commit suicide; that contradictory statements made by Applicant no.1 herein with regard to the reason for deceased‟s visit towards Vatva station. Hence, it has been contested that the deceased was neither bonafide passenger of any train nor he had fallen down from any running train, it is a case of suicide and therefore, in the light of the above mentioned contentions, the Respondent Railway cannot be held responsible for the said act of the deceased and the said act does not come under the purview of untoward incident hence, the Applicants are not entitled the compensation and the claim may be dismissed.

4. Crux of DRM Report: “मृतक के पररजन/दावाकताा ्ቛारा RPF के जााँच अधधकारी को दज ा करवाये कथन में मृतक राजशे कुमार ्ቛारा अपने ररश्तेदार को लनेे हते ुअपने घर स ेसुबह जल्दी उठकर जाना

RPF 16.08.2021 बताया ह ैककन्तु के जााँच अधधकारी ्ቛारा वटवा बूककग पयावे्ቌक से कदनाांक को प्लेटफॉम ा रटकट जारी ककए जान ेकी जानकारी माांगने पर बूककग पयावे्ቌक ्ቛारा उ्ሹ कदनाांक को कोई भी प्लेटफॉमा रटकट जारी नहीं ककये जाने बाबत धलधित में कदया ह ैसे यह स्प्ቖ ह ैकक मृतक अपने ककसी भी ररश्तेदार को लेने हते ु नहीं आया था बधल्क आत्महत्या करन ेके इराद ेसे रेल ्ቌे्ቔ म ेंअनधधकृत रूप स े्ቚवेश ककया था। ............

धनष्कष ा.......... मतृक राजशे कुमार न ेअनधधकृत रूप स ेरेल ्ቌे्ቔ में ्ቚवेश कर चलती मालगाड़ी के नीचे लेट कर आत्महत्या ककया ह।ै ”

5. Based upon the pleadings of the parties and material made available on record, following issues were framed on 14.08.2023.

1. Whether deceased was travelling on a valid Railway journey ticket and was a bonafide passenger of the train in question at the relevant time?

2. Whether the deceased met with an untoward incident due to fall from passenger carrying train, suffered injuries and died as a result thereof and the present case is covered under the definition of Section 123 (c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989?

3. Whether the applicants are the sole dependents of the deceased and are entitled to compensation as claimed, as per Section 123 (b) of the Railways Act, 1989?

4. To what Relief?

6. Applicants Evidence and Respondent Evidence: Applicant No. 1 filled her affidavit as AW/1 and was cross-examined on 01.01.2024.

7. Respondent Evidence: The Respondent Railway administration did not adduce oral evidence, however bank upon its DRM report and documents annexed there to.

8. Documents filed by the parties:

a. The Applicants filed certified copies of:

Inquest Panchnama at Exh.A/1; Panchnama of place of incident at Exh.A/2; P.M. report at Exh.A/3; Passbook of Applicants at Exh.A/4-7; A