PINKI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this first appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is to the impugned order dated 21.07.2010 whereby the claim petition of the appellant seeking compensation for death of her husband, Sh. Hukum Singh was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts as alleged in the complaint, are that Sh. Hukum Singh on 05.06.2009 was travelling from Delhi to Ghaziabad by Chhattisgarh Mail and when the train was passing through Sahibabad Railway Station, due to heavy rush of passengers and pushing from inside the compartment, Hukum Singh fell down from the train and died. In the written statement filed by the respondent before the Tribunal, the defence was that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and there was no pushing from inside the train and hence there was no untoward incident entitling the claim of compensation.

(3.) A civil case is decided on balance of probabilities. After all the facts and evidence have come before the Civil Court/Tribunal, they are put in a scale so as to decide the conclusion which should emerge therefrom. A reference to the facts aforesaid shows that the deceased railway employee was in fact a bonafide passenger because there was in fact a railway pass issued in his name for journey from Delhi to Ghaziabad of the date of the accident. Further, merely because there are certain inconsistencies cannot take away from the fact that the DRM's report and the Station Master's report show that the deceased had fallen down from the train and had suffered grievous injuries and had subsequently died. Accordingly, there is a death of a bonafide passenger on account of falling down from a train. As already stated above, no case was pleaded by the respondent before the Tribunal that the deceased died on account of his own negligence trying to alight from a moving train. The Tribunal therefore could not have dismissed the compensation claimed on a ground which was not even pleaded by the respondent.