Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(RCT) 146
RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL - LUCKNOW
Mr. Justice Bachchoo Lal, Mr. Rabi Sankar Mitra, JJ
KALAWATI & OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
GM – Respondent
OA (II u)/LKO/447/2019
Shri Pramod Kumar, Counsel for the applicants. Shri S. Thapar, Counsel for the respondent.
The burden of proof lies on the applicants to establish their claim of compensation for death, which was not met as evidence indicated the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.
Headnote:(A) Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Section 16 - Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A - Claim for compensation for death of a passenger - The deceased allegedly fell from a train but evidence indicated he was not a bonafide passenger and died from being run over by the train - The burden of proof lies with the applicants to establish their claim. (Paras 1-11)
(B) Burden of Proof - The initial burden lies on the applicants to prove their case, which was not met in this instance. (Paras 8-10)
Facts of the case:
The claim was filed by the wife of the deceased, who died on 23.03.2019 while allegedly traveling by train. The respondent contested the claim, asserting the deceased was not a passenger and died from being struck by the train.
Findings of Court:
The evidence did not support the claim that the deceased was a bonafide passenger or that his death was due to an untoward incident as defined under the Railways Act.
Issues: The main issues were whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger and if the incident fell under the definition of an untoward incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the applicants failed to prove the deceased's status as a passenger and that the evidence indicated he was struck by the train, not falling from it.
Result: The claim application is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Hon’ble Mr. Rabi Sankar Mitra, Member (Technical)
1. The applicants, Smt. Kalawati W/o Mr. Ram Kumar and Others, have filed this claim application under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the respondent Railway administration for payment of compensation for the death of her husband Late Ram Kumar Urf Ram Kumar Pal S/O Budhai (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), on the ground of their dependency on the deceased, who allegedly died as a result of an untoward incident.
2. It has been averred in the claim application that the deceased was travelling on 23.03.2019 from Indamau to Kanpur Central Railway station by Raebareli Kanpur passenger train with a second class journey ticket No. 57056. During the course of his journey, he accidentally fell down from the train near back side of Karowan Sharab Factory in the middle of Unnao and Magarwara Railway station at Km. 56/23-25 - S/Side and succumbed to his injuries on the spot. It has further been averred that the deceased was having journey ticket No. 57056 from Indamau to Kanpur Central Railway station, which was recovered from the possession of the deceased.
3. Notice was issued to the respondent Railway administration who contested the claim of the applicants by filing written statement on 31.05.2021, wherein apart from denying the allegations made in the claim application, it is contended inter alia that the deceased was neither a bonafide passenger in the alleged train nor did he fell down from the train in question on the alleged date of the incident. Accordingly, this incident did not fall within the purview of Section 123 (c) (2) read with Sec. 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 with costs.
ISSUES
4.On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 28.07.2021 for adjudication:
1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question?
2. Whether incident of death of the deceased falls under the ambit of an untoward incident as defined U/s 123 ( c) (2) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989?
3. Whether the applicants are the only dependents of the deceased?
4. To what relief?
5. During the course of enquiry/trial, the applicant No. 1, Smt. Kalawati has filed her affidavit as AW-1, followed by her cross-examination on 02.08.2024 on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent. The applicants have filed and relied on the certified/attested copies of the documents viz. Police GD No. 043, panchanama, post-mortem report with certain documents in evidence.
6. Respondent filed and relied on documentary evidence i.e. statutory investigation report of the Divisional Railway Manager (duly approved by ADRM, Northern Railway, Lucknow, containing several documents as evidence.
7. Heard both the counsel and perused carefully the documents on record filed by the rival parties. Our findings on the issues involved are as under:
FINDINGS Issue nos. 1 & 2
8. These issues being inter-connected have been simultaneously taken up together for discussion. Two contrasting versions of this incident have been put forth before this Tribunal by the rival parties. Applicant’s case is that the deceased was travelling on 23.03.2019 from Indamau to Kanpur Central Railway station by Raebareli Kanpur passenger train with a second class journey ticket No. 57056. During the course of journey, he accidentally fell down from the train near back side of Karowan Sharab Factory in the middle of Unnao and Magarwara Railway station at Km. 56/23-25 S/Side resulting into his instantaneous death on the spot. It has further been averred that the deceased was having journey ticket No. 57056 from Indamau to Kanpur Central Railway station, which was stated to have been recovered from the possession of the deceased. In order to prove their case, applicant No. 1, Smt. Kalawati has filed her affidavit and has tried to corroborate the averments made by the applicants in claim application.
9. On the other hand, the respondent railway contended that after invest
