LEELAVATHAMMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of an order passed by the Railway Claims tribunal, Bangalore, whereby Original Application No. 10/1998 under S. 124-A of the railways Act, 1989, for payment of compensation has been dismissed.

(2.) THE appellant who happens to be the mother of late Sri. Jagadish filed an application under S. 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, before the Tribunal for payment of compensation on account of the death of her son in an untoward incident that occurred while the deceased was travelling on passenger Train No. 284/a between Bhadravathi to Bangalore. The applicants case in the claim petition was that the deceased had purchased a ticket at Bhadravathi station and boarded the train at 11. 15 p. m. for bangalore. Since the railway compartment was heavily crowded, he fell off due to a jerk somewhere on the way resulting in his death. The respondent-Union of India contested the claim on several grounds. It was contended that the deceased was travelling on the foot board in a state of intoxication and had fallen off from the same between the two railway stations mentioned above resulting in his death. The case according to the respondents, therefore, fell within the purview of proviso (d) to Section 124-A of the amended railways Act, 1989.

(3.) IN support of her case, the claimantappellant stepped into the witness box apart from examining AW-2 Shantharaju. The respondents examined five witnesses in support of their version apart from placing reliance upon Ex. R-l to Ex. R-3. By its order d/- 8-10-1998, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger on the train aforementioned nor was any ticket produced by the claimant-appellant in support of her claim that he was. The Tribunal observed that there was material to suggest that the deceased was in a state of intoxication with the result that the incident involving his death could not be said to be an untoward incident within the meaning of section 124-A. The claim petition was on the above findings dismissed, hence the present appeal.