jsy nkok U; k; kf/kdj.k] i Vuk RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATNA No. Res./PNBE/66/2015 OA(II u)/PNBE/167/2012 CORAM: Shri Vinod Kumar Ojha, Hon’ble Member (Judicial)

Dr. Madhukar Sinha, Hon’ble Member (Technical)

Date of Registration: 06.10.2012 Date of decision: 24.05.2023 Parshuram Das @Parshuram Harijan S/o Late Nakul Das, Resident of Village: Bholsar P.O. : Ekchari, P.S.: Kahalgaon, District: Bhagalpur, Bihar. … Applicant Versus Union of India, Through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata … Respondent Claim for ₹ 8,00,000/- with interest.

Appearances: Shri Deep Prabhat Kumar Ld. counsel for the applicant Shri Radhika Raman Ld. counsel for the respondent fu.kZ;

JUDGEMENT

BY DR. MADHUKAR SINHA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL):

1. A claim application was filed by Parshuram Das @ Parshuram Harijan before this Tribunal, under Section 16 of the Railways Act, 1987, for payment of compensation of ₹8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh only) along with interest on account of death of his father, Nakul Das, allegedly in an untoward incident.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

a. On 04.10.2011, Nakul Das (deceased) aged about 55 years, supposedly having purchased a valid and proper 2^nd class train ticket from Ekchari to Bhagalpur (Ticket No. 31449) and boarded a train (Howrah-Jaynagar passenger train).

b. During the course of journey, the train started with a sudden heavy jerk due to which he (the deceased) lost his balance and accidentally fell down from the running train, sustained grievous injuries and died on spot.

c. With the help of GRP, the post-mortem was done in JLNMC & Hospital, Bhagalpur. After completion of postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased.

d. The original journey ticket No.31449 dated 05.10.2011 was filed at the time of giving evidence by the applicant on 27.05.2016.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent contested the OA and filed a written statement wherein it was stated as follows:

a. The applicant had got no cause of action and right to sue in the facts and circumstances of the case.

b. The statement made in para 6 was contradictory to the facts and statements made in fard bayan of the informant.

c. It was not clear that under what circumstances the deceased fell down from any train.

d. The case was not covered under section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989 and the claimant was not entitled for any relief U/s 124A of Railways Act 1989.

e. The statement and assertions made in para 6 were denied and claim application was fit to be dismissed.

f. With reference to para 7, the applicant should be put to prove strictly that the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the alleged train otherwise the deceased should be treated as a trespasser.

g. Further the alleged ticket was not found at the time of inquest, during postmortem or even during investigation of UD case. Hence, this ticket was not acceptable in the light of the case of Maghu Sao decided by Hon’ble Patna High Court. Hence, bona fide was denied.

h. It was submitted that under no circumstances respondent railway could be saddled with any liability and the applicant was not entitled to get any compensation in the instant case.

i. He prayed for dismissal of the application.

4. The Tribunal, based on rival pleadings framed following issues on 20.11.2014 for adjudication:

a. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger?

b. Whether the death of the deceased occurred in untoward incident which covered under Rule

123 (c) (2) of Railways Act, 1989.

c. Whether the applicants/dependents are dependents of the deceased?

d. Whether the applicants/dependents are entitled to receive the compensation, if yes, then how much?

5. In support of his claim application, Parshuram Das @ Parshuram Harijan, the applicant filed the following documents: