, , रेल दावा अधिकरण अहमदाबाद पीठ अहमदाबाद के सम्ቌ कोरम : ्ቦी विजयंत व ंह, माननीय द्ቧ )्቗ावयक )

्ቦी राजकु मार मनोचा, माननीय द्ቧ )तकनीकी(

CASE No. OA(IIu)/ADI/2018/0035 Date of Institution: 05.03.2018 Date of Decision: 24.08.2023

1. Rema Sathyabalan Kamalam, Aged about 48 yrs.

(Wife of the deceased)

R/at: H.No. 1/2362, 2^nd Floor, Macchiwad, Near Makkai Pul, Nanpura, Sunvali, Surat-395001.

2. Pravith Sathyan Kulangara, Aged about 20 yrs.

(Son of the deceased)

3. Mehath Sathyan Kulangara, Aged-Adult.

(Daughter of the deceased)

Both are r/at: 1/2096, 2^nd Floor, Bara Hajari Mohalla, Near Kakhi Bava Mandir, Nanpura, Surat-395003. ….….APPLICANTS VERSUS Union of India Through General Manager, Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd., CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai. ………. RESPONDENT Appearances : Mr. K.M. Shah,Ld. Counsel for the Applicants.

Ms. S.V. Parikh, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent.

CLAIM FORRs. 8,00,000/-

निर्यण Mr. Vijayant Singh, Hon’ble Member (Judicial):

Through this Application under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with section 124-A, 125 & 123 (c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 the Applicants pray for an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- as compensation on account of death of Sathyabalan alias Sathyan S/o Cherukkan Kamalam (Kulangara), aged 49 years (hereinafter referred to as „deceased‟) in an alleged untoward incident, on the ground that they are the dependents of the deceased.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case in claim application are that, on 31.08.2017 the deceased, having a ticket, was travelling from Kolad to Surathkal Railway station and he accidentally fell down from RORO Service train resulting into his death on the spot.

3. In support of the claim, the Applicants have placed on record certified copies of certain documents regarding the incident along with various Govt. Identification card.

4. The Respondent Railway Administration has contested the claim of the Applicants by filing the written statement along with the Investigation Report, wherein apart from denying all the averments, it is contended that due to carelessness and negligence on a part of the deceased, the incident has occurred hence, the incident does not fall under the ambit of untoward incident. On the basis of these and other pleas, dismissal of the claim application has been sought by the Respondent.

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

ISSUES:

1. Whether the 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 the running 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 under Para-16 of the claim application?

4. Relief ?

6. So as to lead evidence, Applicant No.1 Rema Sathyabalan Kamalam has filed her own examination-in-chief on affidavit as AW/1 and got the documents exhibited as A/1 to A/22. She was cross examined by the Counsel for the Respondent on 03.10.2019.

7. The Respondent Railway administration adduced documentary evidence as the Investigation report and also adduced evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Girdharilal Jevariya S/o Sh. Gangaram, Sub Inspector/RPF at Chiplun Station as RW/1 and affidavit of Sh. Avneesh Kumar H S/o Sh. Lekhram, IPF/RPF/ICF at Chennai as RW/2. The Applicants cross examined both.

FINDINGS

8. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, material made available on record, evidence adduced by them and heard the arguments advanced on behalf of rival parties by their counsel. Our findings on the aforesaid issues are as under:

Regarding Issues No. 1 & 2:

These two issues are taken up for consideration simultaneously for the sake of convenience and as also they are interrelated.

9. Accordin