REKHANLAL SHRIVASTAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the award dated 03.08.2009 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in OA-II/60/03, whereby learned Tribunal rejected the application filed by late Rekahan Lal (who has died during the pendency of this Msc. Appeal) and Smt.Ramkali appellant no.1 (who are the parents of the deceased Rajesh Shreevastav) for getting compensation on account of the death of their son Rajesh Shrivastava in a rail accident.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that late Rekhan Lal and Smt. Ramkali appellant no.1 filed an application under Section 16 of Railway Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"?) before the Railway Claims Tribunal Bhopal for getting compensation on account of the death of their son Rajesh Shrivastava averring that their son deceased Rajesh Shrivastava had gone to Manikpur from Satan. When he was returning from Manikpur to Satna and was travelling in a general compartment of train on a valid 2nd class ticket, he fell down from the train between Km. No.1181/ 08 and home signal, dragged into wheels of the train, crushed and died at the place of occurrence. Deputy Station Master, Satna sent a memo at about 10 am on 16.10.2002 to GRP, Satna regarding the alleged incident. On that GRP Satna registered inquest No.41/02 and inquired about the matter. Police after the inquiry found that the deceased Rajesh Shrivastava died due to falling from the train. Applicants are the parents of the deceased and depend on the deceased. In the course of the accident, the train ticket was lost, therefore, it could not be produced before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the claimants filed their claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/ (Rupees four lakhs only) for the death of their son Rajesh Shreevastav.

(3.) Respondent Railway in reply opposed the prayer and pleaded that claimants have not mentioned the number and name of the train by which the deceased was travelling and fell down. The deceased was not a bona fide passenger and alleged death was not caused in any untoward incident as defined under Section 123(C) (2) read with section 124 A of Railways Act 1989 and prayed for rejection of the claim.