In railway accident compensation claims, once the claimant establishes an accidental fall through evidence, the burden shifts to the Railways to prove specific statutory exceptions like suicide. In the absence of such proof, the beneficial legislation must be interpreted liberally to grant compensation to the victims' dependents.

JUDGMENT:

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 08/03/2019 passed in OA II (U) No.180/2015 by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad. By the said order, the learned Tribunal dismissed, the application filed by the appellants under section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, wherein they had sought compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- together with interest and costs, from the South-Central Railways, Secunderabad, on account of for the death of Sri U. Balaji (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in an untoward incident that occurred on 23.05.2015.

2. For the sake of the clarity and convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

I. BRIEF FACTS:

3. The case of the applicant Nos.1 and 2, who are the parents of U. Balaji is that, on 23.05.2015 the deceased intended to travel Nagarur to attend a family function at the residence of his maternal uncle. In furtherance of the said journey, he proceeded to Adoni Railway Station and purchased a passenger train ticket bearing No.68013731 for travel from Adoni to Nagarur. It is their specific case that the deceased boarded Train No.57427 (Raichur – Guntakal passenger) in the second class general compartment and had informed the applicants about his travel. It is further case of the applicants that owing to heavy rush in the compartment, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell from the said running Train at Km.No.483/7-8, between Adoni and Nagarur railway stations, allegedly due to speed jolts and sudden jerks of said running train. As a consequence of fall, the deceased sustained multiple fatal injuries and succumbed to the same at the spot on the very same day.

4. The respondent Railways filed a written statement denying all the allegations and averments made therein. The respondent contended that there was no cause of action for the applicants to file the application, as the claim does not fall within the ambit of Section 123 (c) or Section 124-A of Indian Railways Act, 1989. It was further stated that the keyman P. Mallikarjuna of Gang No.4 saw the dead body lying between the track at Km.No.483/7-8 on 23.05.2015 and reported at 16.20 hours to Dy.SM/Adoni and upon the complaint given by Dy.SM/Adoni, the Railway Police, Adoni registered Crime No.24/2015 at 20.00 hours and conducted inquest on 24.05.2015. It was further contended that the death may be suicide, which amounts to self inflicted injury falling in exception ‘b’ of Section 123 – (C) and 124-A of the Railways Act. Further, there are no eyewitnesses to establish that the deceased travelled in the said train and fell down. The ticket found with the deceased was valid from Adoni to Nagarur railway station only but whereas the dead body was lying between Nagarur – Aspari railway station and the train was stopped for its scheduled halt time of 02 minutes, so due to short time the deceased could not get down from the train is not correct.

II. ISSUES FRAMED BY THE TRIBUNAL:

5. The following issues were framed for determination by the Tribunal:

1. Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question and died as a result of untoward incident?

2. Whether appellant(s) is/ are dependent(s) of the deceased?

3. Whether the applicant(s) is/ are entitled to the compensation as claimed?

4. To what relief?

III. EVIDENCE ON RECORD:

6. On behalf of applicants AWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked. On the other hand, except filing Divisional Railway Manager’s Report (DRM) as Ex.R1, no oral evidence