UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUMATHY SAJEEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the same impugned order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 124A of the Railways Act read with Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. The claimants are the wife and two minor children of deceased Sajeevan who was found dead with injuries on the railway track. He was travelling from Chennai on that day. According to the claimants, he was travelling from Chennai to Aluva and he was found lying dead with injuries on the railway track after Angamali before Aluva. Angamali was the last stop of the train and Aluva was the next stop where deceased Sajeevan allegedly wanted to get down. The claimants alleged that the deceased was the victim of an untoward incident. He must have accidentally fallen from the train, they contended.

(2.) The claimants filed an application with a petition to condone the delay. The delay was condoned by the Tribunal. The Respondent/Railway resisted the claim on various pleas. It was contended that the ticket having not been recovered, it cannot be assumed that he was a bona fide passenger with ticket. It was further contended that the accident must have taken place after the deceased got down from the train and was walking along the railway track. Thus, in short, the contention was that the death did not take place as a result of injury suffered in any untoward incident.

(3.) Parties went to trial on these contentions. On the side of the claimants, the 1st claimant/wife/widow examined herself as P.W.1. She had not witnessed the incident. She confirmed that he was travelling from Chennai to Aluva. His father had fallen sick and he had to hurriedly proceed to Vypeen from Aluva. In short, her evidence conveys that there was no necessity whatsoever for deceased Sajeevan to get down at Angamali and walk along the railway track.