ARTI DEVI & ANR. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this First Appeal under Sec. 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is to the impugned judgment dated 26.8.2010 of the Railway Claims Tribunal whereby the Claim Petition of the appellant was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly the case set up by the Appellant is that on 21.03.2010, the deceased Mr. Manoj Kumar was travelling by Mahananda Express from Phaphund to Delhi in the general compartment which was overcrowded and when the train started, due to jolting and jerk he fell down from the train and died when the train had just moved only a few yards from the station.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Appellant states that with the evidence of Appellant No. 1 AW1, the widow of the deceased Mr. Manoj Kumar and the evidence of AW 2, Mr. Randhir Singh, it is clear that the deceased Mr. Manoj Kumar was travelling in the said train but unfortunately had fallen down because the said compartment of the train was overloaded with passengers. Counsel also submits that the co -passenger who entered the witness box as AW -2 in his deposition clearly supported the fact that he was travelling with Mr. Manoj Kumar. Counsel further submits that even the said witness has explained that due to heavy rush in the train he could not pull the chain to stop the train and on the next station Etawa he had informed the family members of the deceased. Counsel further submits that the said witness has also deposed that he was to attend the wedding of his brother on 30.05.2005 and, therefore, he could not take any further steps in the matter. In support of her arguments, counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Raj Kumari vs. Union of India : 1993 ACJ 846 to submit that the onus is on the Railways to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.