VAISHALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Appeal stems from the judgment and order dated 20.3.2006 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench ( in short "the Tribunal" ) whereby the Claim Application No. 7/OA II/RCT /NGP /2004 was dismissed.

(2.) The facts briefly mentioned are : that the appellant had claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 7 lakhs on account of death of her husband Nitesh Pralhad Bhalerao, near Shegaon Railway Station on 29th April, 2003. It is contended on behalf of the claimant that the deceased was travelling on a free travel pass issued by the Railway Recruitment Board to travel by Train No. 2105 down Vidarbha Express from Mumbai. When the train was approaching Shegaon Railway Station, it is contended that the deceased fell down at km. 545/2426 on down track at about 6.50 hours. The deceased had gone to attend written examination of Railway Recruitment Board on 27th April, 2003 at Mumbai and was returning home, according to the claimant.

(3.) The RespondentRailway did not dispute the fact that deceased was travelling with a free travel authority No. 1112475 issued by the Railway Recruitment Board, Mumbai, as deceased had gone to attend the written examination at Mumbai of the Railway Recruitment Board on 27.4.2003. However, the respondent disputed its liability to pay compensation for the alleged untoward incident. According to RespondentRailway, the deceased was traveling in a casual, rash and negligent manner without taking adequate precaution, which tantamounts to selfinflicted injury and that he was not bona fide passenger at the time of alleged incident near Shegaon Railway Station. According to RespondentRailway, deceased Nitesh who was travelling by MumbaiGondia Train No.2150 { Vidarbha Express} had a free travel authority No. 11102475 to travel from Mumbai to Bhusawal; but deceased had fell down near Shegaon Railway Station and it was beyond the scope of the valid authority to travel from Mumbai to Bhusawal. Therefore, according to Respondent Railway, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. It is also not disputed that deceased had met with an untoward incident. The Tribunal held that the claimant was the sole dependent of deceased Nitesh Bhalerao as his widow; but held against the claimant regarding death in an untoward incident, within the meaning of Section 123(1) (c) of the Railways Act, 1989 {for the purposes of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as the "Act of 1989"}. According to the Tribunal there was no evidence of the deceased falling from train except that the dead body was found lying near at km. 545/2426 near Shegaon Railway Station and that there was no eye witness to the incident; and no circumstantial evidence was led by the claimant. In the result, it was held that the claimant had failed to prove that the deceased died due to accidental fall.