The burden of proof rests on the applicants to establish that the deceased was a bona fide railway passenger; failure to provide credible evidence of an untoward incident, contradicted by evidence of trespassing and being run over, justifies the dismissal of a compensation claim under the Railways Act.

JUDGMENT

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

1. The applicants, Bahadur (since dead) 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 Anil Kumar S/O Late Bahadur (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 the claim application that the deceased when alive was travelling on 21.03.2014 from Sidhauli to Kamalapur Railway station by a passenger train with a second class journey ticket bearing no. 12993520. During the course of journey, the deceased accidentally fell down from the train near Kamlapur railway station, as a result whereof, he sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. 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 taken by the respondent that the deceased died due to being run over by the train and no journey ticket was recovered from the possession of the deceased. The journey ticket attached with the claim application seems to be planted one. 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 31.08.2016 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 © (2) read with Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989?

iii.) Whether the applicants are the dependants of the deceased?

iv.) To what relief?

5. During the course of enquiry/trial, the applicant No. 4, Prem Kumar has filed his affidavit as AW-1, followed by his cross-examination on 22.1.2024 on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent. The applicants have filed and relied on the certified/attested copies of the documents viz. certified copy of journey ticket No. 12993520 issued on 21.03.2014 from Sidhauli to Kamlapur Railway station, panchanama, post-mortem report and copy of pariwar register 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 by ADRM, North Eastern Railway, Lucknow) as RE, containing several documents as evidence.

7. Heard both the counsels for the parties and perused carefully the documents on record filed by the parties. Our findings on the issues involved are as under:

FINDINGS

Issue nos. 1 & 2

8. These issues being inter-connected have been simultaneously taken up together for discussion. Two contrasting versions of this incident have been put forth before this Tribunal by the parties. The applicants’ case is that the deceased was travelling on 21.03.2014 from Sidhauli to Kamalapur Railway station by a passenger train with