Compensation for an untoward incident under the Railways Act requires proof that the deceased was a bonafide passenger who accidentally fell from a train. Death resulting from trespassing on railway tracks does not constitute an untoward incident, and the burden of proving bonafide status lies with the claimant.

J U D G M E N T

1. This Claim Application is filed by the Applicants, under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, read with Sec. 123 (c) (2) & Sec. 124 - A of the Railways Act, 1989, for compensation on account of death of Mohammad Sajid Mohammad Nasiruddin Shaikh (hereinafter referred as deceased), in an alleged untoward incident occurred on 16.12.2017. During the pendency of the case, the Applicant No. 1, Mohammad Nasiruddin Shaikh died on 16.05.2022, during the pendency of the case and hence his name was deleted from the array of Applicants. The Applicants claim that they being the wife, mother and children are the dependents of the deceased, Mohammad Sajid Mohammad Nasiruddin Shaikh.

The factual matrix of the matter in nut-shell is as below:

2. It is alleged that the deceased, Mohammad Sajid Mohammad Nasiruddin Shaikh, a resident of Mira Road (East), Thane, was in service at Asima Super Market, at Mira Road. It is further alleged that on 16.12.2017, he was travelling by local train from Mumbai Central to Churchgate railway station. At about 23.00 hours, as soon as the train started from Mumbai Central railway station, due to sudden push from other passengers, Mohammad Sajid Mohammad Nasiruddin Shaikh accidentally fell down from the moving local train at Mumbai Central railway station and sustained serious injuries. He was taken to Nair Hospital, Mumbai Central, for medical treatment, wherein he was declared dead. It is further alleged that the deceased was travelling on the strength of second class railway ticket Ex. Mumbai Central to Churchgate railway station, but said ticket was lost in the incident. It is therefore contended that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and had died in an untoward incident.

3. In response to notice, Respondent Railway appeared and opposed the Claim application. The Respondent initially filed Written Statement along with DRM Report dated 12.03.2019, wherein in the Written Statement it was mentioned that merely because the deceased was found in railway vicinity does not per se establish the factum of journey. Both the legs and right hand of the deceased were cut. Further, as per statement of Motorman, the deceased was knocked down by train. Moreover, the GRP did not recover any railway travelling authority from the possession of the deceased. Hence, the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, rather he was an unauthorized trespasser in the railway vicinity. Further, referring Inquest Panchnama of GRP/BCT, the DRM Report concluded that the deceased, while travelling by Train No. 91064, had fallen down in the gap between the platform and train and was run over by the train, sustained serious injuries and died, for which railway administration is not responsible. However, on 30.07.2021, Ld. Counsel for Respondent submitted an Application for taking addendum to the DRM Report on record and submitted that in the DRM Report filed on 12.03.2019, at page No. 1 & 2 at serial No. 5, neither statement of the Motorman and Guard is mentioned nor copy of same is annexed to DRM Report dated 12.03.2019. It is stated in the Motorman’s statement that “an unknown person jumped on track ahead of the train No. 91064”, was not mentioned in the conclusion of DRM Report dated 12.03.2019. Hence Division office was informed to reinvestigate and revise their investigation report to that extent. The new DRM Report is filed as an addendum to earlier DRM Report making nec