GEETA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment dtd. 14/8/2015 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in Case No.OA-II/179/2012, by which the Tribunal has rejected the claim petition filed under Sec. 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for the sake of brevity 'the Act') seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000.00 on account of death of one Rajo Rishi @ Reju Rishi by his widow, minor daughters and mother of the deceased.

(2.) Short facts necessary for consideration of the lis stand enumerated as under:- On 6/6/2012, the deceased along with Parmod Rishi, Sunil and others (total 15 passengers) boarded train No.15707 Katihar Express from Katihar Junction to Amabala Cantt. On 8/6/2012 early in the morning. When the train reached between Panipat and Babarpur railway station, the deceased fell down from the train and sustained serious grievous and multiple injuries and died on the spot. Station Master informed the GRP regarding a dead body lying at Sector-6, railway track. The GRP, after reaching the spot, conducted inquest proceedings and recovered one identity card. On the basis of aforesaid, Falaka Police station was informed and communicate about the mishap to the family members of the deceased. The contractor of the labourers also contacted other co-travellers of the deceased who reached Panipat railway station and identified the dead body. It is claimed that the deceased was travelling on 2nd class ordinary mail-express train ticket bearing No.57710643 and 577710646 dtd. 6/6/2012 from Katihar to Ambala Cantt and, thus, would be entitled for compensation as he had died in an untoward incident within the meaning of Sec. 123(c) (2) read with Sec. 124 A of the Railways Act 1989.

(3.) The respondent-railways by filing written statement denied the averments made in the claim application and also denying that there was any alleged incident which can be brought in the ambit of Sec. 123(c) read with Sec. 124-A of the Railways Act 1989. The story is concocted one as no journey ticket was found from the search of body of the deceased. Rather, the tickets were produced later on and appear to have been planted which might have been procured from other passengers. There is no eye-witness to the alleged incident. It stands further mentioned in the GRP proceedings that the deceased might have struck against some pole. The injuries, if any, are self- inflicted and, as such, the case of the respondent-railways is that the deceased was neither a bona fide passenger nor he was a victim of untoward incident.