1. The present First Appeal has been filed by the Appellant – Original Claimant under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the judgment and order dated 16.12.2011 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in Case No. OA 0600044 on the grounds stated in the Appeal. It is contended inter alia that the deceased passenger along with other relatives visited the Veraval from her native from Madhya Pradesh. She was traveling in the train after purchasing ticket along with relatives, who boarded train no. 9222 Veraval – Ahmedabad Somnath Express from Veraval railway station. However, on 19.11.2005 when the said train was passing through K.M. No. 617 / 12 - 13 near Bala Road Railway Station and when the passenger was near the entry of the compartment, in order to attend a natural call, due to sudden jerk or the jolt of the train, deceased passenger fell down from the running train which has lead to filing of the present claim.
2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. P.J.Mehta for the Appellant and Mr.
Ravi Karnavat for the Respondent - Railway Administration.
3. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta submitted that as stated in the application, the deceased was traveling and due to sudden jerk or jolt, when she was near the door of the compartment, she fell down resulting in the accident. He therefore submitted that as the deceased was travelling with the ticket as a passenger, the untoward incident took place which would entitle her to claim the compensation. Learned Advocate has submitted that the Railway Claims Tribunal is a beneficial piece of legislation and the Tribunal has erred in holding that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger referring to the judgment reported in case of Rajkumari v. Union of India, reported in 1994(1) T.A.C. 67. Learned Advocate referred to the provisions of the Act and submitted that it does not disclose that it was a suicide or she was under any influence or she was intoxicated. Learned Advocate therefore submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the deceased has not died due to “untoward incident” as contemplated under Section 124A of the Act, which would entitle the claimant to make the claim.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Ravi Karnavat for the Respondent – Railway Administration also referred to the provisions and submitted that it must be established that there was an untoward incident not as a result of any fault or negligence on part of the deceased claimant. He submitted that in the facts of the present case, admittedly, he had been near the door of the compartment and due to the jerk she fell down and it cannot be said that there was any untoward incident. Learned Advocate Mr. Ravi Karnavat submitted that in order to entitle for such compensation, it has to be established that there was untoward incident for which the deceased or the injured claimant was not liable. He further submitted that in fact whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger or not is not established as no ticket has been produced. It is in these circumstances, the impugned judgment and order is just and proper.
5. In view of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present First Appeal can be entertained or not.
6. From the relevant discussion as it is evident from the impugned judgment and order, there is no dispute that the deceased was traveling in train no. 9222 Veraval – Ahmedabad Somnath Express and she fell down from the running train. The Station Master's memo which has been placed on record says that the Gang Jamadar had informed the Station Master, Bela Road that the body of an unknown woman was lying at the track. The inquest panchnama was also made. She was traveling with other relatives who had identified her stating that they had also been going or traveling in the same train. Therefore, it is established that the deceased was traveling in Veraval – Ahmedabad Somnath Express along with her relatives. She was traveling in the train and fell down and therefore there is no question of Driver having informed about the lady coming across the train. Infact she had fallen down from the train due to jolt which has lead to this accident.
7. The another facet of the argument that the deceased was not having the ticket as it has not been produced before the police to establish that she was a bonafide passenger. However, the valuables including the jewellery and money has been recovered from two purses found in possession of the deceased as per inquest panchnama. It would also therefore suggest that she was traveling in the train along with her relatives. Therefore, if the deceased was traveling with her relatives mainly because the ticket has not been produced or is not recovered, it would not be sufficient to deny the compensation. When the deceased has been found traveling with other relatives as a passenger when the other relatives have also stated and the evidence on record suggest about the other traveling in the same Veraval-Ahmedabad Somnath Express, the claim cannot be denied. The mother-in-law and others, who were present have identified the dead body and they have stated that they had gone to Dwarka. Therefore, while considering such application, the entire evidence has to be seen and if from the material and evidence it is established that the deceased was traveling as a passenger merely because the ticket has not been recovered at the spot from the deceased by itself would not be a ground to deny the claim for compensation. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissing the application cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is required to be mentioned that the Railway is a beneficial piece of legislation and while interpreting the provisions, one must have a regard to the over all facts and circumstances with regard to the pragmatic approach.
8. It is in these circumstances, the present First Appeal deserves to be allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 16.12.2011 in Case No. OA 0600044 is hereby quashed and set aside.
(Rajesh H. Shukla,J) Jayanti*