रेल दावा अधिकरण लखनऊ न्यायपीठ RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH Claim Application No.: OA/II/U/991/2013 CORAM:

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

Date of Institution: 27.12.2013 Date of Decision: 16.02.2026

1. Dhanmohammad

2. Smt. Muleda R/o- Village-Dakshin Pata, H/O Nikrail H. No. 4, Kasba & Post- Mahanandapur District- Malda (W.B.). ……. APPLICANTs VERSUS Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.

……. RESPONDENT Appearance: Shri D. K. Singh, Counsel for the applicants.

Shri A. K. Sinha, Counsel for the respondent. CLAIM FOR Rs. 8,00,000.00/- (with interest)

JUDGMENT

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

1. The applicants, Dhanmohammad S/O Late Rajbali 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 their daughter Late Hena Khatoon @ Hena Parveen D/o Shri Dhanmohammad (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), on the ground of his dependency on the deceased, who allegedly died as a result of fire accident in train.

2. It has been averred by the applicants in claim application that on 18.10.2013, the deceased namely Hena Khatoon @ Hena Parveen when alive was travelling by train Farrakka Express after having purchased a journey ticket on Berth No. 7 from Malda Town to Delhi Railway station with a valid journey ticket No. 56865158 and 932952 (EFT). During journey, she fell down from upper berth No. 7, resulting she died due to severe injuries sustained by her. The journey ticket from Malda Town to Delhi Railway station was recovered from the person of the deceased. 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 hers family members for last rites.

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 applicant. Apart from denying the allegations made in the claim application, it is contended inter alia that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger of the train nor she accidentally fell down from the train. Accordingly, this incident was not covered under Sec. 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

07.01.2015 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 applicant is the only dependent of the deceased?

iv) To what relief?

5. During the course of enquiry/trial, the applicant No. 1, Dhan Mohammad (Father of the deceased) has filed his own affidavit as AW-1 and another affidavit of one Milan Ravidas (AW-2), who is stated to be a co-traveller with the deceased. Both the witnesses were cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for the respondent on 17.03.2021. The applicants have relied on certified copies of documents i.e. Railway journey ticket no. 56865158, Ex. Malda Town to Delhi with EFT No. 932952, S. M. Memo/Lucknow, Railway Doctor medical report, panchanama, Post-mortem report, Police GD, photocopy of ration card with other documents in evidence.

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

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

During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for