J U D G E M E N T:

1. This is an application under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 filed by the applicant as a sole dependant claiming compensation on account of the death of her son Subhamoy Das allegedly in an untoward train incident of accidental falling from a train. It is pleaded in the claim application that on 05.08.2019 the victim was travelling by a local train from Naihati to Shyamnagar with a valid ticket. In the course of his journey, he fell down from the train between Naihati and Kankinara and succumbed to his injuries on the spot.

2. The respondent railway has filed Written Statement disputing and denying the averments made in the claim application. In the written statement, it was contended that there is no evidence that the victim boarded any train on the date of alleged incident and he fell down from it. It was also mentioned in the written statement that no ticket was recovered by the police from the possession of the deceased and the same was seized.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether the incident on account of which the victim alleged to have died can be termed as an ‘untoward incident’ as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989?

2. Whether on the date of the alleged incident the victim was a bona fide railway passenger?

3. Whether the applicant is the dependant of the deceased in terms of Section 123(b) of Railways Act and is entitled to get compensation, as prayed for?

4. Relief, if any?

Contd…2 C.A. No. OA(IIU)/KOL/2020/0085

4. The applicant filed her affidavit of evidence and she was cross-examined as AW/1. In support of the case, the applicant has furnished the following documents, which were marked Exhibits :-

1. Aadhar card of Sephali Das - A/1 2. Voter’s card of Sephali Das - A/2 3. Pan Card of Sephali Das - A/3 4. Death certificate of Subhomoy Das - A/4 5. FIR - A/5 6. Railway memo - A/6 7. Surathal report - A/7 8. Final Police Report - A/8 9. P.M. report - A/9 On the other hand, the respondent railway filed DRM/SDAH’s report along with annexures which were marked Exht.R/1 collectively.

5. Ld. Counsels for the rival parties submitted their respective oral arguments. After appreciating the arguments and perusing the record, we determine the issues as under :-

Issue No. 1

6. SM/Naihati/Eastern Railway on 05.08.2019 at 06.45 hrs. issued a memo to OC/GRP/Naihati (Exht.A/6) stating that as reported by guard of 13132 Exp., one male unknown person aged about 40 yrs. was injured by an unknown train on Dn. Main line between Naihati and Kankinara at KM 36/5-37/7 and the body was lying outside the track. On the basis of this information, Naihati GRPS registered U/D case no.64/19 dated 05.08.2019. In the surathal report(Exht.A/7) it was revealed that as per statements of the witnesses, the deceased while travelling by an Up or Dn. train standing at the gate, he dashed with a post and fell down. The surathal report was signed by (1)Anil Mallick 2) Md. Moniur Rahaman, (3) Biswanath Das. As per claim application, one Ashok Karmakar, uncle of the deceased was with the deceased. It is not the case of the applicant that the witnesses of the surathal report were co-passengers of the deceased and they witnessed the alleged incident involving the deceased and as such, it was not possible for them witnessing the victim travelling by a train and falling from it after being dashed with an electric pole. Moreover, it was assumed in the surathal report that the deceased was travelling either by an Up train or a Dn. train. Moreover, no railway ticket was found from the possession of the deceased. Moreover, Ashok Karmakar(AW/2) deposed that Biswanath Das is uncle of the deceased and he was not with the deceased at the time of the alleged incident. GRP informed Biswanath Das about the incident. In such circumstances, it is held that the inquest report was prepared on the basis of a