[1] By this appeal, the appellant – original applicant has challenged judgment dated 19.10.2011 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Case No.OA 0100161, by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the application preferred by the applicant for compensation.
[2] According to applicant, deceased passenger Ramrao Kashiram Shishode was coming from Amalner to Vapi along with his wife to see their elder son who is staying at Silvass. They purchased two tickets from Amalner to Vapi and they boarded in 114 UP Bhushaval – Surat Passanger on 16.01.2001. The deceased along with his wife got down at Udhna Station for changing train and from Udhna they boarded in Train No.138 UP Surat – Virar Shuttle. That due to heavy rush and sudden jerk of the train, the deceased fell down from the running train at Udhna railway station. The deceased was brought to Civil Hospital, Surat and died as a result of injuries sustained by him and Post mortem was also carried out.
[3] Wife of deceased Sushilabhai preferred Claim Application under section 125 of the Railway Act before the Railway Claim Tribunal, Ahmedabad for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/ which came to be registered as OA 01000161. She filed affidavit regarding incident occurred along with necessary documents. During the course of proceedings, she died and therefore, present applicant – Sajerao Ramrao Shishode was brought on record as legal representative of the claimant widow. Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad after considering evidence on record, dismissed the application preferred by the applicant. Tribunal came to the conclusion that considering total variance with the pleadings and evidence produced on record, the applicant has not come out with clean hands. Hence, present appeal.
[4] Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the judgemnt passed by the Tribunal is bad in law. He submitted that deceased was bona fide passenger. Moreover, the applicant in his affidavit has stated that he had purchased two tickets from Amlaner to Vapi. The onus of proof lies on railway about bona fide passenger. Without considering this facts, the Tribunal has dismissed the application preferred by the applicant and therefore, it is requested to allow the appeal.
[5] Learned advocate for the respondent has supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that deceased was not bona fide passenger as the applicant has not placed on record the ticket. That the tickets were not found from the place of incident or from the pockets of the deceased. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the appeal.
[6] Heard learned advocates for the parties. It is admitted fact that incident took place and deceased lost his life. This Court has gone through the order passed by the Tribunal. Having perused judgment passed by the Tribunal, this Court is of the Tribunal has committed error in rejecting the application of the applicant for compensation in absence of any evidence placed on record by the opponent – Union of India (Railways). Husband of the applicant lost his life. When accident takes place it is very difficult to place on record tickets purchased by the passenger who was travelling in the train. It is the not the case of the respondent – Union that respondent has not produced any evidence which shows that because of negligence of the present applicant deceased as he was travelling to alight running train died. Though under section 123 of the Railway Act, it is burden on the railway to prove the case and in the present case, railway has failed to prove the case, Tribunal ought to have allowed the application.
[7] In view of above, the appeal is allowed. Judgment dated 19.10.2011 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Case No.OA 0100161 is quashed and set aside. It is held that the applicant is entitled to get compensation along with 6% interest from the date of filing the application.
[M.D.Shah, J.] satish