KANTABAI RANGNATH GAIKWAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal challenging the judgment dtd. 5/8/2016, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur (for short, "the Tribunal") in Case No. OA (IIu)/NGP/2011/0241, dismissing the claim of the appellants.

(2.) The brief facts are that Shri. Rangnath Dattarao Gaikwad was found dead on 24/5/2011 near Railway Platform No. 1 of Gangakhed Railway Station with his head cut off from the neck region and lying separated from the trunk at a distance of 120 feet, the body cut from his waist, the trunk completely crushed showing the ribs and total abdomen and chest viscera lacerated. It has been claimed by the appellants that the deceased Shri. Rangnath Gaikwad died in an untoward incident on 24/5/2011, while travelling from Parli to Gangakhed by Parli Adilabad Passenger Train and fell down from the running train and sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the said injuries on the spot.

(3.) It is the case of the appellantsclaimants that earlier the deceased had gone to meet his younger son Babasaheb Gaikwad appellant No. 3 herein. The appellant No. 3, who was in service at Parli had purchased a valid train ticket for the deceased father from Parli to Gangakhed worth Rs.4.00 at 4.30 a.m. for Parli Adilabad Passenger Train and boarded the deceased on that train from Parli Station. It is stated that when the train reached near Gangakhed Railway Station, the deceased accidentally fell down from the train due to heavy rush in the train and died on the spot. It is submitted that the untoward incident happened due to the sole negligence of the respondent-Railway, and therefore, the respondent-Railway is liable to pay compensation to the appellantsclaimants for the said untoward incident as the deceased was a bona fide passenger. It is submitted that the respondent-Railway has not produced any evidence or eyewitness to prove that the injuries sustained by the deceased was not a result of an untoward incident or that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The respondent- Railway had opposed the claim of the appellants in the Tribunal by filing a written statement submitting that the incident did not fall under the definition of untoward incident as per sec. 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, "the Railways Act") and that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The Tribunal considered both these issues and held after examining AW-1 Kantabai, who is the wife of the deceased Rangnath observing that the fact that Rangnath died on account of an untoward incident must be proved by the appellants in order to claim compensation under sec. 124-A of the Railways Act, and that as there is no such presumption and held that the appellants had not been able to prove either by direct or circumstantial evidence that the death on the basis of which compensation was being claimed had taken place after being involved in an untoward incident. The Tribunal also held that the appellants had not been able to prove that the deceased Rangnath was a bona fide passenger and that he had fallen down from any train carrying passengers. The Tribunal also went on to hold that mere finding of a dead body or person in injured or dead condition or on by the side of a track does not ipso facto prove that the deceased person fell down from a train carrying passengers. It is stated that the burden of proof rests entirely on the appellants-claimants to prove the untoward incident and the same cannot be presumed. On this basis, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellants.