Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4) To what relief ?

30. In order to prove her case, the first applicant examined herself as AW.1.Exs.A. 1, A1/2, A.2, A.2/2, A.3, A.3/3, A.4, A.5, A.5/2, A.6 and A.7 were also marked on behalf of the applicants. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the railways.

31. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence and in the light of the dependency certificate Ex.A.1, the Tribunal held that the claimants are the parents of the deceased and the deceased was traveling as a passenger with ticket No. 98896. The Tribunal also found that the ticket was recovered from the body of the deceased as mentioned in the inquest proceedings. It is also mentioned in the inquest proceedings, that the deceased slipped and fell down from the train accidentally. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the claimants are entitled for compensation and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs. Four lakhs and apportioned the same among the applicants.

48. Insofar as the decision cited (5) supra, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the burden of proof lies on the claimant and in that case there was no direct evidence to prove that the deceased died in consequence of train accident and no reliable evidence was also placed to show that the deceased purchased ticked and boarded the train. In those circumstances, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the claimants were not entitled for any compensation as they failed to discharge the burden in this regard.However, in this case, there is a categorical finding of the Tribunal that all the deceased were bonafide passengers from whose possession valid journey tickets were found. Therefore, as held by us in the foregoing paragraphs, the claimants-respondents are entitled for compensation for the death of the deceased in untoward incidents. This decision also does not lend any assistance for the appellant-railways.

59. On the basis of the material, the Railway Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), on issue No.1 held that all the applicants are the dependants of the deceased. On issue No.2, the Tribunal, on the basis of the record relating to the issuance of ticket bearing No.25674 on 8.3.1998 for the journey from Chandrapur to Ramagundam, held that that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. On issue No.3, the Tribunal held that since no material is placed before the Tribunal to show that the deceased had an accidental fall from a train and in view of the report of the Deputy Superintendent, Bellampallythat one male dead body aged about 40 years is lying inside of Down line between Rechini Road/Bellampally at Kms.239/20-22, there was no accidental fall from a particular train in which the deceased supposed to have travelled. The Tribunal further held that there is no substantial evidence to show how the body was brought to the accident site. Relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Sunil Kumar Ghosh (1) the Tribunal decided the 3rd issue against the applicants as if there was no accidental fall by the deceased from the train. Having decided the 3rd issue against the applicants, with regard to issue No.4, which relates to granting relief, the Tribunal held that no relief could be granted and accordingly dismissed the O.A.A. by order dated 10.9.1999. It is this order, which is assailed before this Court in the present appeal.

"In the case of a mishap to the passenger in such circumstances it cannot be said that there has been an accident to the train and the mishap has nexus with it. The liability under Section 82A will not, therefore, be attracted in such cases. Or in the case of a mishap to a passenger in similar circumstances, such as an injury sustained on account of falling down whilst getting on or off a running or stationery train or sustained when he slips in a compartment or when something falls on him whilst traveling. All such mishaps, when not connected with the accident to the train, or a part of it, would be accidents to the passenger only. And until both the mishaps take place, one to the train and another, a sympathetic one, to the passenger, the liability under Section 82A of the Act will not be attracted."