M SELVAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the dismissal of original application in OA No.59 of 2007 by an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench dated 07.08.2008.

(2.) The case of the claimants is that they are wife and children of the deceased person one S.Manuvel, who died on account of accidental fall from the train. In order to prove that it is an untoward incident and that they are entitled to compensation, the second applicant/son of the deceased examined himself as AW1 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. On the side of the respondent, the report of the Divisional Railway Manager was filed as Ex.R1. The Tribunal, after going through oral and documentary evidence, had come to a conclusion that the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased Manuvel and he suffered death in a train accident due to accidental fall, thereby "untoward incident", entitling them for compensation. But the issue whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger at the time of incident is concerned, it was answered in the negative. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, against which the claimants are before this Court.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the applicant the incident is held to be an "untoward incident" under Section 123 (c) (2) of Railways Act and therefore benefit shall be given to the claimants. The claimants were not aware of the death of their father that had taken place due to the train accident. They came to know of the incident only through paper publication made by the Railway Police. In such circumstances it will not be possible for them to prove that their father had taken ticket to travel in the train. On the contrary, the onus is on the Railways to prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. In the absence of any evidence that the deceased has not purchased ticket, it is presumed that he purchased the ticket and traveled in train. Benefit of doubt has to be given in favour of the claimants, as held in very many judgments and it is presumed that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the FIR, inquest report, final report and identification of the body by the legal representatives would go to show that an "untoward accident" had happened and the deceased had suffered death. In such circumstances, the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal that the claimants failed to prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger is not sustainable. Therefore, the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal is set aside and the claim petition is ordered as prayed for.