रल॓ दावाअ(cid:8)धकरण,कोलकाता(cid:14)यायपीठ BEFORE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCH Coram ::Shri Sanjay Singh Gehlot, Hon’ble Vice-Chairman, RCT/Kolkata.

Shri Rajeev Jain, Hon’ble Member (Judicial)/RCT/Kolkata.

Claim Application No.OA(IIu)/KOL/2019/0194 Application filed on 11.09.2019 & registered on 27.09.2019 &

Decided on 04.09.2023.

1. Aklima Khatun, W/o late Sk. Abdul Faruk Ali @ Sk. Abdul Faruk. 2. Sk Mujibar Rahaman F/o late Abdul Faruk Ali @ Sk. Abdul Faruk

3. Firoza Begum, M/o late Abdul Faruk Ali @ Sk. Abdul Faruk..

Address:

Madhya Kumirmora Purakaitpada, Kumirmora, Chanditala, Hooghly – 712 705 …. Applicants.

-VS-

Union of India represented through The General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata. …… Respondent Application under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 in respect of claim for compensation for the death in untoward incident to a train.

Value of claim : Rs.8,00,000/-.

Recorded Advocate: Shri N. Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the applicant.

Shri P. Prasad, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent.

िनण॔य

J U D G E M E N T

I. Basic details relating to accident as contained in the application :

a. Date of accident : 10.10.2018 b. Person died : Abdul Faruk Ali @ Sk. Abdul Faruk c. Relationship of the claimant with the deceased : Wife, Father & Mother.

d. Train involved : Local Train.

Contd…/2 e. Untoward incident narrated : On 10.10.2018, the victim, Abdul Faruk Ali @ Sk. Abdul Faruk, since deceased was travelling from Sealdah to Gobra with valid 2^nd class railway ticket. During the course of his journey, he accidentally fell from the running train due to over-crowding and sudden jerk near Dankuni Railway Station and died on the spot.

f. Place of occurrence of untoward incident: Near Dankuni Rly. Stn.

g. DRM’s Report. : Filed.

h. Averments in reply : The deceased was not a bona fide passenger and death of the deceased did not occur in any ‘untoward incident’ under the provision of Section123(c)(2) of the Railways Act.

2. Though issues were framed, but for proper adjudication, issues are re-cast as under :-

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

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

(3) Whether the applicants are the dependants of the deceased and are entitled to get any compensation from the respondent ?

(4) Relief, if any ?

3. The applicant, Aklima Khatun, wife of the deceased and Sk. Mujibar Rahaman, father of the deceased appeared as (AW/1) & (AW/2) and has furnished certain documents which were marked Exhibits as under :-

1) Aadhaar Card of Aklima Khatun. … Exhibit A/1 2) Election I/Card of Aklima Khatun. … Exhibit A/2 3) Certified copy of Investigation Report. … Exhibit A/3 4) Certified copy of Dead Body Challan. … Exhibit A/4 5) Certified copy of Final Police Report. … Exhibit A/5 6) Certified copy of P.M. Report. … Exhibit A/6 7) Certified copy of Station Memo. … Exhibit A/7 8) Aadhaar Card of Sk.Mujibar Rahaman. … Exhibit A/8 9) Voter I/Card of Sekh Mujibar Rahaman. … Exhibit A/9 Contd…/3

4. Respondent railway has adduced two evidences namely Suman Kuma Roy, Gateman (RW/1) Kousik Pramanik, Station Master (RW/2) and has filed DRM’s Report along with relevant Annexures which have been marked as Exhibit R/1 (collectively).

5. Considered the pleadings of both sides, perused all the documents and evidence available on record, heard the submission made by Ld. Counsel for the applicant and seen the written argument filed by Ld. Counsel for the respondent. Our decisions on the issues are as under :-

कारण(cid:19)स(cid:21)हत(cid:23)नण॔य DECISION WITH REASONS Issue No. 1 :-

6.1 The applicant, Aklima Khatun, wife of the deceased, in her affidavit has affirmed the same fact as stated in the original claim petition. From the cross-examination of the applicant (AW/1), it appears that she was not an eye-witness to this incident. Sk. Mujibar Rahaman, father of the v