OMANAMMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant before the Railway Claims Tribunal is the appellant. She pleaded for compensation on account of death of her husband Vasudevan Nair, alleging that his death was as a result of an untoward incident. In the application, she had pleaded that while travelling, her husband fell down from the train. The Tribunal refused to grant compensation holding that she had no consistent version as to, in which class the deceased had travelled and as to whether he possessed ticket; to show that he was a bonafide passenger. No belongings of the dead person was also stated to have been recovered.

(2.) THE fact of the matter remains that Railways DRM's report read with the testimony of PW2 - the Gate Keeper and PW3 - a local eye witness, who stated that they saw the body of the victim established the untoward incident. The Gate Keeper also said in his statement, he had mentioned that no ticket was found in the body of the dead person when it was checked. These materials clearly show that the deceased suffered injuries and died as a result of the fall from the train or may be, even by any impact with some part of the bogie of the train. Either way, it does not make any difference because the nexus between the injuries suffered by the deceased and the motion of the train having been established, it amounts to an "untoward incident" for the purpose of the Railways Act. Therefore, compensation is payable for the death. The status of the applicant as the widow is not under challenge. The quantum of compensation is determined in terms of the provisions, which, at the relevant point of time, was Rs. 4 lakhs.