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

CASE No. OA(IIu)/ADI/2022/0078 Date of Institution: 27.09.2022 Date of Decision: 26.09.2023

1. Desai Yogeshkumar S/o Desai Vinodchandra, Aged 60 Years.

(Father of the deceased)

2. Desai Ramilaben W/o Desai Yogeshkumar, Aged 55 Years (Mother of the deceased)

Residing at: C-38, Mangaldeep Society, Nandelav Road, Opp. Busha Society, Bharuch-392001. …. APPLICANTS -VERSUS-

Union of India Through General Manager, ..… RESPONDENT Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.

Appearance: Mr. N.R. Kapade, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants.

Mr. G.J. Dave, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent.

CLAIM FOR Rs. 8,00,000/-

JUDGMENT

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

The case in hand has been preferred before this Tribunal by the parents under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A, 125 & 123 (c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- together with interest on account of death of Desai Ravi S/o Desai Yogeshkumar, aged-30 yrs. (hereinafter referred to as „deceased‟) in an alleged untoward incident. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case in claim application are that on 19.08.2022 the deceased was travelling from Bharuch to Surendranagar Station with a PNR ticket by train No.22923 Jamnagar Humsafar Express and accidentally fell down from the train at platform no.3 of Bharuch station resulting in 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 DRM Report, wherein apart from denying all the averments, it is contended that, the deceased fell down while he was trying to board the running train negligently therefore, the present case is not covered under Section 123 (c)(2) of the Railway Act, 1989, hence, the Respondent Railway Administration is absolved from its liability to pay compensation. 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 passenger carrying train, suffered injuries and died as a result thereof and the present case is covered under the definition of Section 123 (c)(2)

of Railway Act, 1989 ?

3. Whether the Applicant(s) is/are the sole dependent(s) of the deceased and is/are entitled to compensation as claimed as per Section 123 (b) of The Railways Act, 1989?

4. To what Relief?

6. So as to lead evidence, applicant No.1 Desai Yogeshkumar S/o Deai Vinodchandra filed his own examination-in-chief as AW/1 on affidavit and got the documents exhibited as A/1 to A/13 accordingly. He was cross-examined by counsel for the Respondent.

7. The Respondent Railway administration adduced documentary evidence as the DRM report and filed CCTV footage in a CD in this case as evidence.

FINDINGS

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

Issue No.1:

9. It has been averred by Applicants that on 19.08.2022, the deceased was travelling, from Bharuch to Surendranagar Railway Station, by train No.22923 Jamnagar Humsafar Express, holding a E reservation journey ticket bearing PNR No. 8555870336, seat no. B/6-58 (Exh.A/4). Hence, he was bonafide passenger of the train. Per contra, Ld. counsel for the Respondent admitted that the deceased was having PNR E-tic