Parents’ Claim Over Son’s Fatal Train Fall Revived As Orissa HC Directs Tribunal To Award Compensation On Unrebutted Co-Passenger Testimony

The appellants, parents of the deceased, sought compensation after their son died following an alleged fall from a moving train on 28 July 2018, while travelling from Lokmanya Tilak Terminus to Jabalpur on Pawan Express.

Before the Railway Claims Tribunal, the first appellant testified as AW-1 and a co-passenger, Ajaya Biswal, as AW-2. AW-2 testified that he and the deceased had purchased tickets and travelled together; the Railways did not elicit evidence in cross-examination contradicting that account.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim on 30 May 2022. In the appeal, the Railways relied on a DRM report dated 22 February 2019, which concluded that the deceased was not travelling on the train; the report had not been proved through the examination of its author or another witness.

Under Union of India v. Rina Devi, the claimant bears the initial burden of establishing the relevant facts, which may be discharged by an affidavit; the burden then shifts to the Railways, and the mere absence of a ticket does not negate bona fide passenger status.

Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, govern untoward incidents and compensation for them.

The Court also applied the evidentiary principle that an investigative report cannot be relied upon as proof where it has not been proved through a witness.

AW-2 gave direct evidence that he and the deceased bought tickets at Lokmanya Tilak Terminus and boarded Pawan Express together. His evidence that the deceased was travelling with him was not contradicted in cross-examination, and his testimony also linked the incident to the deceased’s journey.

By contrast, the Railways’ DRM report was not proved by examining its author or another witness, so it could not properly be relied on to reject the claim.

The Tribunal therefore failed to properly assess the evidence before it.

It remitted the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to pass an award in favour of the appellants for the amount due and admissible within six weeks of receiving the order, releasing 50% and placing the remaining 50% in fixed deposit. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.