UNION OF INDIA Vs. NUKA ASHOK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNION of India, the unsuccessful respondent, had preferred this appeal under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 assailing the order dated 03.06.2009 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad passed in OAA. No. 225 of 2004 filed by the parents and family members of the deceased -Nuka Arun Kumar claiming compensation for the loss sustained by them due to the untimely death of the said deceased in an untoward incident viz., an accidental fall from a train.

(2.) I have heard the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Union of India and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/applicants 1 and 2. The respondents 3 and 4 are stated to be not necessary parties. I have perused the material record. The basic facts are as follows:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant/Railways would contend that according to the contentions of the applicants, the deceased is an Engineering student but, there was no evidence to that effect and that the dead body was found around 11:40 AM near Ramagundam Railway yard but the departure time of the train is 07:00 AM and that the fact that dead body was not noticed for a long time would show that the death was not due to any accident but, for some other reasons and that the applicants did not produce either a ticket or a pass and therefore, the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and that in view of the fact that the dead body was found near Ramagundam Railway yard, it is obvious that the accident did not take place in the railway station and that, therefore, it is possible to deduce that since he did not possess a ticket or a pass, he might have tried to board the train after the train had left the station and that in that process he might have fallen down while boarding the train and that under Section 2(29) of the Railways Act, a passenger means a person travelling with a valid pass or a ticket and that since the applicants did not produce a ticket or a pass, the deceased is not a bona fide passenger and that there is no proof that the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train and that the facts show that the death was due to the negligence and criminal act of the deceased and that, therefore, the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation and fastening liability on the Railways. The learned counsel alternately contended that interest should have been awarded at 7.5% per annum simple.