MAMTA & OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, filed under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against the order of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench dated 24.01.2014, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants, who are the wife, father and minor daughter of the deceased, has been rejected.

(2.) The reasoning for the Tribunal to come to the said conclusion is that the deceased-Tilakraj was not having a valid travel document in the form of a ticket or a pass and nobody had seen him falling off the train on the evening of 08.04.2012 between Ambala Cantt & Mohri Railway Stations. Resultantly, it was held that the deceased was neither a victim of an untoward incident, as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) of the Railways Claims Act, 1989 nor was a passenger and a finding was recorded that he suffered the injuries due to his own negligent act, for which the Railways could not be held responsible. Under issue No.3, it was held that the appellant/claimants who are the widow, minor daughter and father, were the only dependents of the deceased but compensation was denied under issue No.4.

(3.) Counsel for the appellants has argued that sufficient material was there to show that it was a case of untoward incident and merely because the ticket was not recovered would not be sufficient to discard the case of the claimant/appellants as the body was found next to the track, regarding which there was no dispute. The deceased was not a resident of the said area, who was travelling from Kalka to Delhi in the Himalayan Queen Express and therefore, his accidental falling off would, thus, be covered under the provisions of untoward incident as defined under Section 123 (c) (2) and merely because the ticket was not found, as such, would not absolve the Railways of the liability.