AAM NARBAD & ANR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, 'the 1987 Act') is directed against the award dated 12.10.2015 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short, 'the Tribunal') by parents of the deceased. The claim for compensation was denied solely on the ground that the claimants had been incapable to prove that the deceased was a bonafide passenger and he had become a victim of the untoward incident according to the Railway provisions, while deciding issue Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) The claimants - appellants (herein) are the father and the blind mother of the deceased. The specific claim of the claimants in the petition filed is that the death of their son Deen Dyal, who was 25 years old had occurred when the deceased had gone to visit his sister Seema, who was living with her husband Hanumat @ Rajesh at Ludhiana. He had purchased a journey ticket from Ludhiana Railway Station to go to Jaipur, which was his work place on 10.03.2013 at 9:30 PM. His body was found lying 8 kms down at 339/18 downline between Khanna and Chawa Railway Station around the tracks and information was received on 11.03.2013. The Gateman, namely, Iqbal Singh, of Gate No. 159/C had informed the Station Superintendent, Chawapail. Resultantly, it was held out that he was travelling as a valid passenger in the train and the ticket was lost in the incident and then he was a bonafide passenger. His brother-in-law (jija) had been informed by telephone on the number of his mobile, which was found from the deceased in Jamatalashi and, accordingly, his parents have filed the claim petition.

(3.) The defence of the Railways was that he was not a bonafide passenger and neither he was holding a valid ticket nor a platform ticket or pass of the alleged journey, therefore he was not entitled for the claim under Section 124-A of the Railways Act and he was not covered under the definition of untoward accident. It was further stated that he had died on his own mistake/negligence and, therefore, the respondents are not liable to claim compensation and claim petition is liable to be dismissed. The deceased was found in the wheat fields and he had come before the train and he had been run over by the train.