रेल दावा अधिकरण लखनऊ न्यायपीठ RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH Claim Application No.: OA/II/U/172/2023 CORAM:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bachchoo Lal, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Ms. Archana Srivastava, Member (Technical)

Date of Institution: 19.12.2016 Date of Decision: 11.11.2025

1. Vidyawati, aged about 56 years W/O Late Sohan Lal (widow of deceased)

2. Prem Sagar, aged about 37 yrs. S/O Late Sohan Lal (son of deceased)

3. Santosh Kumar, aged about 30 yrs. S/O Late Sohan Lal (son of deceased)

R/O: Village - Sainbasi, PS- Fatehpur, District- Barabanki. …. Applicants VERSUS Union of India through General Manager Through North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.

……. Respondent Appearance: Shri C. P. Singh, Counsel for the applicant. [Virtual Mode]

Shri Deepak Shukla, Counsel for the respondent.

CLAIM FOR Rs. 20,00,000.00/- (with interest)

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bachchoo Lal, Member (Judicial)

1. The applicants, Vidyawati W/O Late Sohan Lal have filed this claim application under section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the respondent Railway administration for payment of compensation for the death of her husband namely Late Sohan Lal S/O Late Salik (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), on the ground of their dependency on the deceased, who allegedly died as a result of an untoward incident.

2. It has been averred by the applicants in claim application that the deceased was travelling on 19.02.2012 from Teshsil Fatehpur to Mahmudabad Avadh Railway station by train (details not disclosed) with a second class journey ticket. During the course of journey, he accidentally fell down from the train at Tehsil Fatehpur railway station, resulting he sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. It has further been averred that the deceased was having a valid journey ticket from Tehsil Fatehpur to Mahmudabad Railway station, which was lost in the incident. Further, the Police on receipt of the information about this incident, completed requisite formalities including panchanama and post-mortem on the dead body. Thereafter, the dead body of deceased was handed over to his family members for last rites.

3. Notice was issued to the respondent Railway administration who contested the claim of the applicants by filing written statement, wherein apart from denying the allegations made in the claim application, it is contended inter alia that the deceased was neither a passenger in the alleged train nor did he fell down from the train in question on the alleged date of the incident. A specific plea was also taken by the respondent that in fact the deceased was crossing the railway track and run over by the train. As per GD of RPF, the dead body was identified by his son and it was informed that deceased was not travelling and was dashed by a Goods train. Accordingly, this incident did not fall within the purview of Section 123 (c) (2) read with Sec. 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. Hence, the claim application is liable to be dismissed with costs.

ISSUES

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on

09.10.2023 for adjudication:

i) ?

क्या मतृ क प्रश्ङ्गत रेलगाड़ी का सद्भावी यात्री था

ii) -

क्या मतृ क की मत्ृ यु से संबन्धित घटना रेलवे अधिननयम की िारा 123 (सी)

-A ?

सपठित िारा 124 के अतं गतग पररभाषित अनपेक्षित घटना की पररधि मे आती है

iii) ?

मतृ क के आधित कौन है

iv) ?

याचीगण ककस उपशम को प्राप्त करने के अधिकारी है

5. During the course of enquiry/trial, the applicant No. 2, Prem Sagar has filed his affidavit as AW-1 and another affidavit of one Mukesh Kumar (AW- 2), who was stated to be a witness for the purchase of the journey ticket. Both the witnesses were cross-examined on 08.01.2025 by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent. The applicants have filed and relied on the certified/attested copies of the documents viz. panchanama, post-mortem report along with certain documents in evidence.

6. Respondent filed and relied on documentary evidence i.e. statutory investigation report of the Divisional Railway Manager (duly approved