रे्ቧे दावा ्቗ायाधिकरण धद्ቤी ्቗ायपीठ RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH Claim Application No.: OA/II(u)/DLI/244/2019 HON’BLE Mr. SUNIL MATHUR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HON’BLE Mr. UMESH KUMAR SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) RCT JAIPUR @ DLI Date of Filing : 08.04.2019 Date of Decision : 16.11.2023

1. Sh. Rajeev Kumar Singh S/o Late Sh. Dhanpal Singh

2. Sh. Jitendra Pal Singh S/o Late Sh. Dhanpal Singh

3. Sh. Bhupendra Pal Singh S/o Late Sh. Dhanpal Singh

4. Sh. Satendra Pal Singh S/o Late Sh. Dhanpal Singh

5. Sh. Gajendra Singh S/o Late Sh. Dhanpal Singh All R/o:- Village Pepal, Post-Pepal, Tehsil Basauli, District-Badaun.

.....…APPLICANT Versus Union of India, through The General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.

..……RESPONDENT Claim for Rs. 10,00,000/-

Counsels: Sh. Avdhesh Kumar, Counsel for the Applicant.

Sh. Anupam Srivastava, Counsel for the Respondent.

J U D G E M E N T

(By Sh. Sunil Mathur, Member (Technical)

1. The present claim application was filed by Sh. Rajeev Kumar Singh and Others under Section 16 of The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking compensation for the death of Dhanpal Singh, aged about 68 years, in an averred untoward incident. It has been stated that Dhanpal Singh, hereinafter referred to as the deceased, on 02.09.2018 was going from Karengi Railway Station to Bareilly after purchasing a ticket in Aligarh/Bareilly Station. Due to excessive crowd and jerk the deceased accidentally fell from the train near Revati Bahoda Kheda Railway Station and died as a result thereof. He was travelling on the strength of a general ticket bearing no. 26352. The claimants are Sh. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Sh. Jitendra Pal Singh, Sh. Bhupendra Pal Singh, Sh. Satendra Pal Singh and Sh. Gajendra Singh all sons of the deceased and they have sought compensation for the death of Dhanpal Singh in the said untoward incident.

2. Upon service of notice, Respondent Railway contested the claim application and filed Written Statement and statutory investigation report of the DRM. In the Written Statement it was prayed that the claim application be dismissed with cost. The relevant para no. 3 of the Written Statement is reproduced below:-

“3. That the contents of Para no 6 (b) of this claim petition are not admitted to the answering respondent for want of knowledge As per the inquiry report that is commonly known as DRM report the incident is recorded as the memo was issued by SM Anwla Rly Station to the civil police Anwla on the information of Loco-Pilot of train no 151126 Dn (which was passing through) that one dead body was lying at KM No 34/1-2, the head of deceased was lying outside the track and rest of the body was lying inside the track. No ticket was recovered from the body of the deceased at the time inquest proceeding and there was no eye-witness of the incident. As per the applicant's storey on the fateful day the train was over-crowded and deceased fell down from the moving train near Rewati Bahoda Kheda Rly station and run over So it is a clear cut case of self inflicted injuries as if he was crossing the track and was run over by any unknown train The applicants are required to prove contrary to it strictly The applicant has absolutely failed to indicate any evidence regarding the alleged incident of accidentally falling down from the aforesaid alleged train. Hence railway Administration cannot be held responsible for the wrongful act of the alleged deceased. The present case for the reasons mentioned in the petition is not covered under the definition of "Untoward Incident". And moreover the present case is not covered u/s 123 (C) (2) r/w sections 124 (A) of the Railways Act 1989. The applicant is required to prove it strictly.”(Reproduced verbatim)

3. The following issues were framed for adjudication on

07.09.2020:-

1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger in the train in question at the time of incident?

2. Whether there was any untoward incident as is defined under the Provisions of Section 123 (c) of Railways Act, 19