SANGITA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellants/applicants under Sec. 23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act') challenging the judgment dtd. 28/4/2016 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore in O.A.II-U-No.042/2012, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by the applicants.

(2.) Brief facts of the case of the applicants: On 11/12/2011, when Mr.Thukaram Gadeppanavar (deceased) went to Gadag from Hubli by train to see his relatives and while returning on the same day night by train, accidentally he fell down from the moving train, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Thereafter, the applicants, who are the wife, 3 minor children and mother of the deceased filed application before the Tribunal seeking compensation. On service of summons, the respondent appeared through counsel and filed written statement and denied the averments made in the application. On behalf of the applicants, applicant No.1 was examined as AW-1 and produced 10 documents as Ex.A-1 to 10. On behalf of the respondent-railways, no witness was examined, but only DRM's report was produced and marked as Ex.R-1. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that the applicants have failed to discharge the burden on the railway. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the applicants.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the wife of the deceased has been examined as AW-1. She has categorically stated that when her husband was traveling in the train, he fell down from the moving train and sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Police registered FIR and after thorough investigation have filed charge sheet stating that the deceased fell down from the moving train and sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The applicants have discharged their burden and the burden is shifted on the railway authorities. To disprove the case of the applicants, the respondent except producing the DRM report, they have not examined any witness nor produced any other documents. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of RINA DEVI vs. UNION OF INDIA reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.