Facts
The appellants filed a claim application following the death of Bijender Singh (the deceased) on 23.07.2018.
Source reference: p. 2They alleged that the deceased boarded a train from Maripat to Ghaziabad with a valid ticket and died after accidentally falling from the train due to a heavy rush.
Source reference: p. 2The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim on 31.10.2022, holding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the incident did not qualify as an "untoward incident".
Source reference: p. 1-2No journey ticket was recovered from the deceased during the jamatalashi (search); the appellants argued the ticket was lost in a bag.
Source reference: p. 2-3The deceased’s son (AW-1) admitted he did not witness the ticket purchase or the boarding.
Source reference: p. 3The body was discovered by an RPF official at 01:45 hours, whereas the last passenger trains had departed hours earlier at 19:49 and 21:36.
Source reference: p. 4Issues
1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger as defined under the Railways Act, 1989?
Source reference: p. 3, para. 72. Whether the death of the deceased was caused by an "untoward incident" within the meaning of the Railways Act, 1989?
Source reference: p. 3, para. 7Law Applied
The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, regarding the right of appeal.
Source reference: p. 1It interpreted the definitions of "bona fide passenger" and "untoward incident" under the Railways Act, 1989.
Source reference: p. 2The Court also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, which establishes that while the mere absence of a ticket is not always determinative, the initial burden of proof lies on the claimant to demonstrate bona fide status, which can then shift to the Railways.
Source reference: p. 2-3Reasoning
The Court determined that the appellants failed to discharge the initial burden of proving the deceased was a bona fide passenger.
Source reference: p. 3No ticket was recovered, and the testimony of AW-1 was deemed hearsay as he lacked direct knowledge of the boarding or ticket purchase.
Source reference: p. 3The Court found the appellants' version improbable, noting that the deceased lived closer to Ghaziabad but allegedly traveled in the opposite direction to Maripat to board the train.
Source reference: p. 3Regarding the "untoward incident," the Court observed there were no eyewitnesses to the alleged fall.
Source reference: p. 4The RPF and DRM reports indicated a significant time gap of over four hours between the last scheduled train and the discovery of the body.
Source reference: p. 4Furthermore, statements from the deceased's mother and brother during the inquiry suggested he had been "run over" by a train rather than having fallen from one, which contradicts the claim of an accidental fall from a passenger train.
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The High Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's findings and held that the appellants failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger or that the death resulted from an "untoward incident".
The Court concluded that the version of the accidental fall was unsubstantiated and improbable.
Source reference: p. 3-4Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal was upheld.
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
Suman Devi & Ors.vsUnion Of India
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in