रेल दावा अधिकरण लखनऊ न्यायपीठ RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH Claim Application No.: OA/II/U/LKO/360/2021 CORAM:

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

Date of Institution: 17.09.2021 Date of Decision: 10.03.2026

1. Vanhaiya Nishad (Father)

2. Jonhiya Devi (Mother)

3. Smt. Rita Devi (Wife)

4. Anushka (minor daughter)

[Applicant No. 4 is minor and represented through her mother and natural guardian Smt. Rita Devi]

R/o- Village – Ranihava, PS- Rudrapur District- Dewariya (U.P.).

……. APPLICANTs VERSUS Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.

……. RESPONDENT Appearance: Shri A. P. Singh, Counsel for the applicants.

Shri Deepak Shukla, Counsel for the respondent.

CLAIM FOR Rs. 21,00,000.00/- (with interest)

JUDGMENT

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

1. The applicants, Vanhaiya Nishad S/O Chauthi and Others 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 Late Basant Kumar Nishad S/O Shri Vanhaiya Nishad (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

13.05.2021, the deceased named Basant Kumar Nishad when alive was travelling by train no. 02590, Secunderabad - Gorakhpur Express from Secunderabad to Gorakhpur Railway station with co-travellers namely Govind S/O Late Laxmi and cousin Tarkeshwar S/O Guddu. It has further been alleged that the deceased could not purchase journey ticket and he informed to the TTE concerned who assured and advised him to go and sit in D - coach in the said train and his journey ticket would be issued by any other TTE during journey. But no TTE came upto Badshahnagar Railway station. After departing the train from Badshahnagar Railway station on 15.05.2021 one TTE namely Mr. Jai Narayan Yadav came and checked about the journey ticket of the deceased, then the deceased said him to issue journey ticket. But TTE Jay Narayan Yadav instead of issuing the journey ticket called the deceased in the gallery, where the deceased gave him Rs. 1000/- for preparing the journey ticket, but TTE Jay Narayan Yadav did not agree and asked for Rs. 4000/- and extra money. When the deceased showed inability to give extra money, the TTE abused the deceased and violently attacked on the deceased resulting the deceased had fallen down from the train in question and succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Thereafter, TTE Jay Narayan Yadav was caught by the passengers and handed over to the Police. 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 her 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 applicants. Apart from denying the allegations made in the claim application, it is contended inter alia that the deceased was neither a bonafide passenger of the train nor he 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

04.08.2022 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) Who are the dependent of the deceased?

iv) To what relief?

5. During the course of enquiry/trial, the applicant No. 3, Smt. Rita Devi (Widow of the