BHAMHADEO TUKARAM HARYAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal filed under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 the appellants (original applicants) have impugned the judgment dated 18th April, 2016 delivered by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, dismissing the Application No. OA (IIU) MCC 2010/0749 filed by the appellants. By consent of parties, this first appeal is heard finally at the admission stage. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under :

(2.) The appellants herein were the original applicants before the Tribunal. It was the case of the applicants that on 8 th January, 2010, Motiram Bramhadeo Haryan had purchased valid second class railway coupon tickets bearing Nos.13123298-07, 13123298-01 and 13123298-10 respectively worth Rs.2/-, Rs.1/- and Rs.4/- respectively for his travel from Bandra to Borivali stations in local train that was going towards Borivali. At about 14:56 hours when the said train reached Khar Railway Station at KM No.16/3-A and 16/4-A, the said Motiram Bramhadeo Haryan (hereinafter referred to as "the said deceased") fell down from the running train, sustained serious injuries and died on the spot, leaving behind the appellants who are the parents of the said deceased as the only dependents.

(3.) On 30th August, 2010, the appellants filed claim application under section 16(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 inter- alia praying for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from the respondent on account of death of their unmarried son in the said untoward incident occurred on 8th January, 2010. It was the case of the appellants that they were financially dependent on the said deceased and there was no other dependent on the said deceased. As per the Charge Book extract of Khar Police Station, the said deceased was found lying dead at KM No.16/3-A and 16/4-A. The said application was resisted by the respondent by filing a written statement. It was the case of the respondent that the said deceased was neither a bonafide passenger nor fell down from the running train in question and thus the incident was not covered under the provisions of section 123(1)(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989. The Railway administration was thus exempted in law under section 124(A) of the Railways Act, 1989.