रेल दावा अधिकरण लखनऊ न्यायपीठ RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH Claim Application No.: OA/II/U/622/2016 CORAM:

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

Date of Institution: 10.06.2016 Date of Decision: 05.01.2026

1. Ankul Singh, aged about 30 yrs. S/O Shri Jagdish (Son of deceased)

2. Jagdish, aged about 65 yrs. S/O Late Totaram (Husband of deceased)

R/o- H. No. 149, Lalpura, Nai Basti, Near Hardoi District- Etawah (UP). ……. APPLICANTs VERSUS Union of India through General Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad.

……. RESPONDENT Appearance: Shri C. P. Singh, Counsel for the applicants Shri V. K. Verma, Counsel for the respondent. CLAIM FOR Rs. 10,00,000.00/- (with interest)

JUDGMENT

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

1. The applicants, Ankul Singh S/O Mr. Jagdish and Another 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 Late Ram Kali W/o Jagdish (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 on 09/10-01-2016, the deceased namely Smt. Ram Kali when alive was travelling by train from Etawah to Kanpur Central Railway station with a valid Railway journey ticket, which was lost in the incident. During journey, she accidentally fell down from train at Govindpuri railway station and succumbed to her injuries during treatment on 10.03.2016.

3. Notice of the claim application was issued to the respondent who filed reply by way of written statement wherein the respondent contested the claim of the applicants. Apart from denying the allegations made in the claim application, it is contended inter alia that the deceased was neither a passenger of the train nor she accidentally fell down from the train on 09/10.01.2016 at Govindpuri Railway station. A specific plea was taken by the respondent that as per DRM report, deceased was trying to board a moving train in a careless and negligent manner endangering her own life. Accordingly, this incident was not covered under Sec. 123 (c) (2) read with Sec. 124A 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

13.07.2021 for adjudication:

i) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question?

ii) Whether incident of death of the deceased falls under the ambit of an untoward incident as defined u/s 123 (c) (2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989?

iii) Whether the applicants are the only dependents of the deceased?

iv) To what relief?

5. During the course of enquiry/trial, the applicant No. 1, Mr. Ankul Singh has filed his own affidavit as AW-1 and another affidavit of one Mr. Babu Singh (AW-2), who is stated to be a co-traveller with the deceased and a witness for purchase of journey ticket. Both the witnesses were cross- examined on 04.08.2022 by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent. The applicants have filed and relied on original discharge card, certified copy of treatment history, medical bills and death certificate with other documents in evidence.

6. The respondent Railway has filed the investigation report of the Divisional Railway Manager (duly approved by ADRM), North Central Railway, Allahabad, containing some documents in evidence.

7. Heard the learned counsel representing the respective parties and perused carefully the material on record. Our findings on the issues involved are as under:

FINDINGS Issue Nos. 1 and 2

8. Both these issues, being inter-twined, have been simultaneously taken together for discussion. Two contrasting versions of the incident have been put forward before this Tribunal by the parties. It is the case of the applicants that the deceased was travel