MANIBEN PALJIBHAI PARMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT. Meniben wd/o Paljibhai Parmar has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 26-2-1993 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in Claim Application No. 4/0-A/ii/rct-NGP/92 whereby the claim of widow seeking compensation under section 124 of the railway Act, 1989 (for short, the Railways Act) has been rejected on the sole ground that the deceased Paljibhai was not a bona fide passenger in the railway train, on the date of the accident. Brief facts are required to be stated as under :

(2.) THE deceased Paljibhai boarded into the railway train on 9-7-1992 bearing no. 8033 down Ahmedabad Hawarah Express. He had travelled and crossed the distance of about 844 Km. The railway train derailed between Dhamangaon talni railway station and because of that the accident occurred causing death of Paljibhai and other 14 passengers. Maniben is the widow who has filed the claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal on 18-8-1992 seeking recovery of compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs in view of the provisions of sections 123 (b) read with 124 and 125 of the Railway Act on the contentions that her husband Paljibhai was travelling in the railway train in connection with the work of his employer and therefore, the widow is entitled to received the compensation. It is contented on behalf of the railway administration that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger in the railway train at the time of accident and therefore his widow is not entitle to receive compensation. On the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal framed several issues. The parties adduced the evidence before the Tribunal. On consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal recorded the finding that Paljibhai was not a bona fide passenger in the Ahmedabad-Howarah express train and therefore, his widow is not entitle to receive compensation. Consistent with this finding, the Tribunal dismissed the claim. This order dismissing the claim application, is challenged in this appeal.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the claimant contended that the deceased was travelling for official duty and his employer had paid him sufficient money to purchase journey ticket. The deceased was holding proper journey ticket which might have been lost in the train accident. He contended that in the first information report lodged at the Police Station, Dhamangaon, it has been mentioned that Paljibhai was one of the victim of the ill-feted train. He contended that though the name of the deceased did not appear in the reservation chart in Sleeper Coach S/i from where the dead body was recovered, the deceased was travelling with ticket and therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in reaching the conclusion that the P. N. R. No. 510131 and Railway Ticket No. 72234469 was mentioned in the record at the time of granting ex gratia payment to the brother of deceased and that there was contravention of the provisions of sections 53, 55 and 137 of Railway Act. He contended that the onus is on the railway administration to prove that the deceased was travelling without ticket or was not a bonafide passenger and railway department did not discharge the burden of proof and therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger in the railway train. He contended that even the presumption can be drawn in view of section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act keeping in view the prohibition under section 68 of the Railway Act against boarding the train without ticket and that the deceased was bonafide passenger. He contended that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in law and in support of these submissions he relied on the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of (Rajkumariand another v. Union of India), 1994 (1) T. A. C. 67.