The court ruled that evidence clearly supported the deceased as a bona fide passenger, countering the Tribunal’s dismissal and confirming claimant eligibility for statutory compensation.

01] This is an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 , assailing the judgment dated 01.03.2018, whereby learned Member, Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) dismissed the Claim Petition No.OA (IIu)/NGP/116/2016 filed by the Appellants.

02] The brief facts necessary to decide this appeal are as under:

The Appellants, who shall be hereinafter referred as the Claimants, had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal alleging that deceased Paresh Ravindra Vani had undertaken a train journey from Dharangaon to Jalgaon. He fell down from a running train at K.M. No.277/6-7 Railway Station, Dharangaon. The Claimants stated that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his death was caused in an untoward incident. The Claimants, therefore, claimed statutory compensation by filing Claim Petition under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short “the said Act”).

03] In response, the Respondent denied that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The Respondent also denied that the death of the deceased was caused in an untoward incident. The Respondent, therefore, denied its liability to pay any compensation to the Claimants.

04] The Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The Tribunal also recorded a finding that the Claimants have failed to prove that the death of the deceased Paresh Ravindra Vani was caused in an untoward incident.

The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the Claim Petition filed by the Claimants.

05] Shri R.G. Bagul, learned counsel for the Claimants submits that the police record clearly indicates that the death of the deceased Paresh Ravindra Vani was caused due to fall from a running train. He further submits that there was no report of suicidal death or accidental death. He contends that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are not based on the evidence on record, but a product of surmises conjectures. He further submits that the fact that no ticket was recovered is not per se a ground for disbelieving the case of the Claimants, moreso, when the Respondent has not adduced any evidence to prove that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger.

06] Per contra, Shri P.S. Khubalkar, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the deceased was travelling by train from Dharangaon to Jalgaon. He further submits that the Claimants have failed to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and further that he had fallen from a running train. He further submits that the evidence on record reveals that the deceased was residing at a distance of 1 k.m. from the place where the body was traced. This fact gives rise to an inference that the deceased was hit by the train while he was walking along the track or trying to cross the railway track. He, therefore, contends that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on evidence on record and cannot be interfered with.

07] I have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. The short point for consideration is whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger and whether his death was caused in an untoward incident.

08] It may be mentioned that the Claimant No.2, mother of the deceased, had filed her affidavit-in-evidence, wherein she has deposed that on 28.04.2014 her son was travelling from Dharangaon to Jalgaon for his personal work. She has stated that he had purchased a valid ticket for train journey from Dharangaon to Jalgaon. She claims that there was heavy rush in the general bogie and that when the train reached near K.M. No.277/6-7 Railway Station, Dharangaon, her son fell down because of the jerk and that he died on the spot. This witness had admitted in her cross-objection that she had not witnessed the accident.

09] There is no direct evidence to prove that the death of the decea