Trademark Dispute Over ‘Pe’ Settled Between Phone Pe and Bharat Pe  ||  Centre Starts Granting Citizenship Under CAA in West Bengal, Haryana and Uttarakhand  ||  Circular Regarding Prioritizing Cases of Litigants/Advocates with Disability, Issued by Delhi HC  ||  Del. HC: Free Wi-fi Facility Launched by Delhi High Court for Lawyers, General Public  ||  Ker. HC: Construction of Illegal Religious Structures Cannot be Permitted on Government Land  ||  Kar. HC: De-Nomination of Chairman of Minorities Commission by Govt. Before Term is Not Arbitrary  ||  Delhi High Court: Question of Property Title Can’t be Decided by Forums Under Senior Citizens Act  ||  Jh. HC: Can’t Cancel Bail Unless There is Violation of Bail Conditions or Accused Impedes Fair Trial  ||  Guidelines Issued by Delhi High Court for Trial Court Judges to Decide Transfer Applications  ||  P&H HC: Presence of Magistrate Mandatory to Prove Compliance With Section 52A of the NDPS Act    

Sunadari Hembram Vs. Union of India - (Railway Claims Tribunal) (09 Apr 2019)

Mere presence of a body on railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that, injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for compensation claim



The Applicant has filed present claim petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking compensation for an amount of Rs. 4,00,000. The averments made by the Applicant are that on 27th September, 2010, her son, since deceased, boarded local train for his journey from Katwa to Bankapi Railway Stations. It is pleaded that, when the said train was entering before Bankapi Railway Station, her son, accidentally fell down from the said running train and died. It is further pleaded that over the incident, a Police Case has been registered.

Admittedly in the instant case, there is no direct evidence. Further, it is the well settled principle of law that, where there is no direct evidence, the circumstantial evidence should be reckoned to come to the reasonable conclusion. In the FIR which is the most prima facie documents, it has clearly mentioned that victim died run over by train. In view of nature of the case, it is observed that for want of sufficient documentary evidence, the Tribunal is helpless to consider the fact that, the victim actually fell down from any train which might have attracted the provision of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

Further, in regard to the loss of alleged ticket, the Tribunal observes that, in the instant case the applicant has not been able to produce sufficient proof to establish that the cause of death of the victim reasonably attracts the provision laid down under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act.

Further, in the case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that, mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the railway sand the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances.

Thus, in view of the above facts, evidences, circumstances and documents available in the record, the Tribunal observes that since the applicant has miserably failed to prove that her son died due to a reason which may fall within the ambit of untoward incident', as per provision of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, and that the victim was a bona fide passenger on the date of the alleged incident, the Tribunal is helpless to consider the Issues in favour of the applicant. Since, the applicant has failed to establish her case, she is not entitled to get any compensation. The instant claim application is dismissed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved