Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(RCT) 208
RAILWAY CLAIM TRIBUNAL - DELHI
Mr. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, CJ, Mr. MUKESH NIGAM, J
SMT SATYAVATI DEVI AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER – Respondent
OA (II u)/DLI/304/2024
Sh. Prashant Mehra for Smt. Ila Chaudhary, counsel for the applicant. Sh. Mohit Sharma, counsel for the respondent.
The court established that the injuries sustained by the deceased were consistent with a fall from the train, qualifying the incident as untoward under the Railways Act, warranting compensation.
Headnote:(A) Railways Act, 1989 - Section 123(c) - Claim for compensation due to death of a bonafide passenger - Deceased fell from a running train, leading to fatal injuries - Respondent admitted deceased was a bonafide passenger but denied incident was untoward - Tribunal found injuries consistent with fall from train, not run over - Compensation awarded of Rs. 8,00,000/- with 9% interest. (Paras 1-10)
(B) Burden of Proof - The burden lies on the claimant to establish the occurrence of an untoward incident as defined under the Act - The Tribunal must weigh evidence and circumstances to determine liability. (Paras 8-9)
Facts of the case:
The deceased, Nitesh Kumar, was found dead near Kulwa railway station after allegedly falling from a train. His parents claimed compensation, asserting he was a bonafide passenger with a valid ticket. The respondent admitted his status but denied the incident was untoward. (Paras 1-2)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal determined that the injuries sustained by the deceased were consistent with a fall from the train, leading to the conclusion that the incident was indeed untoward as per the Act. (Paras 8-9)
Issues: The main issues were whether the incident constituted an untoward incident under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act and whether the applicants were dependents of the deceased. (Paras 4-5)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence supported the claim of an untoward incident, emphasizing the need to consider the totality of circumstances rather than solely relying on the opinion in the Panchnama. (Paras 8-9)
Result: Claim application allowed; compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- awarded with interest.
JUDGMENT
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, Chairman (Oral):-
1. Nitesh Kumar, aged 19 years, unmarried son of the applicants was found dead on 18th October 23 at KM 1338/02 near Kulwa railway station. A memo was sent by Deputy Station Master, Aligarh Junction to the RPF and GRP to attend to the dead body lying at the above spot.
2. The present claim application has been filed by Smt. Satyavati Devi and Sh. Balveer Singh, parents of Nitesh Kumar (hereinafter called ‘deceased’). They have prayed that their son died in an untoward incident and was a bonafide passenger of the train in question, hence, compensation be awarded. It is further the case of the applicants that their son was a bonafide passenger and was having a valid railway journey ticket bearing number ACA-23392281 and the said ticket was recovered from the deceased along with a bag and a damaged mobile phone. In Annexure-’A’ to the claim application, it is further pleaded that on 17th January 2023, the deceased came to Khurja Junction railway station and purchased the above said ticket for undertaking journey to Aligarh Junction railway station. It is further the case of the applicants that the occurrence took place on the intervening night of 17th and 18th October 2023 and when the train reached near KM 1338/02 Kulwa, then suddenly due to jerk given by the train and push of co-passengers of overcrowded train, the deceased, who was standing near the gate of the train compartment, fell down from the running train and received serious/grievous injuries, which proved fatal.
3. Notice of the claim application was issued. The respondent filed Written Statement by way of reply along with the statutory report of DRM Ex. R-1. In Para 4 of the Preliminary Objections, it is admitted that the deceased was a bonafide passenger, however, it was denied that he died in an untoward incident. In the statutory report of DRM, Ex. R-1, it was concluded as under:-
4. The Tribunal on 15th October 24 passed the following order while formulating issues for adjudication:-
“A perusal of the record reveals that the written statement along with the report of DRM has already been filed. The Court Master is directed to assign Ex. R-1 to the report of DRM.
Sh. Mohit Sharma, counsel for the respondent has read para-4 of the preliminary objections taken in the written statement. The said para-4 of the preliminary objection reads as under:-
“4. That in the present matter, the preliminary enquiry was conducted and as per the statement of Station Master of Kulwa Station, on 18.10.2023 Keyman Sh. Deshraj Meena informed him that a dead body was lying outside the Railway track near KM No. 1338/02 at around 05:25 a.m. and Station Master issued Memo regarding the same. According to the statement of Keyman Sh. Deshraj Meena, on 18.10.2023 his duty shift was from 05:00 to 11:00 a.m. between KM No. 1339/00 to 1337/00. That during shift time Keyman had seen a dead body was lying outside the Railway track near KM No. 1338/02 at around 05:25 a.m. The Keyman informed to the Station Master of Kulwa Station about the same. During Jamatalashi a Railway Ticket bearing no. ACA 23392281EX from Khurja Junction to Aligarh Junction was found from the Deceased and it was found to be valid. There was no eyewitness of the said incident hence there was no fault on the part of Railways. That the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the Train but the incident was not an untoward incident and happened due to his own negligence. Therefore, the Railway administration has no liability towards the claim.” (Reproduced in Verbatim)
Relying upon the above pleadings, Sh. Mohit Sharma has very fairly admitted that the deceased was a bonafide passenger.
Having heard counsel for the parties, gone through the pleadings and the report of DRM, the following issues are formulated for adjudication:-
1) Whether there was any untoward incident as is defined under the provisions of Section 123(c) of Railways Act, 1989?
2) Whether the applicant(s) is/are dependent(s)
