MADHURI VINOD GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent. The appeal arises out of a claim made by the appellants under section 124-A of the Railways Act,1989 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The claim was made on account of death of one Vinod Somnath Gupta. According to the case made out by the appellants, the deceased was travelling from Mahalaxmi to Kalwa. According to the appellants, the deceased was travelling along with the first appellant from Mahalaxmi to Kalwa on 20th September 2004. While proceeding by a local train, he fell down between Thane and Kalwa Stations and sustained injuries. He ultimately succumbed to injuries.

(2.) IT is the case of the appellants that the deceased had purchased a second class ticket which was lost in the transit. The first appellant is the widow of the deceased and the second and third appellants are the minor children of the deceased. The respondent contested the claim by filing a written statement. It was contended that that the deceased was knocked down by a local train and the incident was not an untoward incident. It was denied that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Reliance was placed on investigation report of DRM dated 23rd November 2005 which is annexed to the written statement. It was contended that there is no material placed on record to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions. I have perused the record, The report dated 23rd November 2005 has been annexed to the written statement of the respondent. The report records that He was travelling on that part of the coach which is not intended for the use of passengers. The report also records that the deceased was travelling in a negligent and careless manner. The report relied upon by the respondent falsifies the case of the respondent regarding knock down by a train. The report itself prove that the deceased had boarded the train and therefore, the burden was on the respondent to prove that the deceased was travelling in a negligent and careless manner. However, no evidence has been adduced by the respondent. From the impugned order, it is apparent that a stand was taken by the respondent that this was a case of knock down.