RAJ BALA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present appeal filed under Sec. 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Act'), the appellants/claimants have assailed the order dtd. 18/8/2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi in Case No.OA/II(u)/DLI/13/2019 titled as Smt. Raj Bala and Ors. v. Union of India.

(2.) The appellants, who are statedly the wife and sons of the deceased/Ram Kumar, had preferred the claim petition under Sec. 16 of the Act. In the evidence by way of affidavit filed by appellant No.1 before the Tribunal, it was claimed that the deceased was employed as a Trackman and posted at the Old Delhi Railway Station, Northern Railway. He had a privilege pass bearing No.887956 and on 29/5/2018, he, alongwith one Ravi Kumar, undertook a train journey from Sadar Bazar to Nangloi by Sirsa Express Train. When the train reached near Nangloi Railway Station, the deceased fell down from the train and the same resulted in grievous injuries all over his body. He was immediately taken to Sonia Hospital, where an MLC was prepared. The deceased died during treatment and later, his postmortem was conducted at Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Delhi.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and suffered injuries on account of his own negligence. It was further contended that while arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the deceased was issued a Privilege Pass bearing No.887956 authorizing him to travel from Kanya Kumari to Mata Vaishno Devi Katra. Reportedly, the said pass was valid from 12/4/2018 to 11/9/2018 and verified in the report of the DRM proceedings. Learned counsel also drew the attention of the Court to an endorsement made on the said pass indicating not only the train number but also travel date as well as the boarding Station (Sadar Bazar). He further submitted that the incident resulting in death of the deceased was an 'untoward incident' as defined under Sec. 123 (c) read with Sec. 124(A) of the Railways Act, 1989. It was also contended that the reliance placed on the statement of Ravi Kumar, a co-passenger of the deceased and an employee of the respondent, made during the DRM proceedings is misplaced, as another statement of Ravi Kumar, was recorded on the day of the accident by GRP, which is contrary to the statement recorded during DRM proceedings.