Pradeep Nandrajog JUDGMENT
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. Present appeal lays a challenge to the order dated 20.11.2006 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi dismissing the claim application of the appellants.
2. Appellants had filed a claim application under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 claiming compensation in sum of Rs. 6 lakhs on account of the death of Late Sh. Sarfaraj Khan (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) alleged to have been caused when he had accidentally fallen from a train.
3. In the claim application it was averred that on 10.05.2003 the deceased had boarded EMU passenger train GDM 1 from Nizamuddin station for a journey from Nizamuddin to New Delhi Railway Station. That since the train was overcrowded the deceased got a place near the door of a compartment of the train. That at around 8.45 AM when the train was approaching Tilak Bridge Railway Station there was a sudden jerk due to which the deceased fell down from the train and died of injuries received as a result thereof. That the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that the death of the deceased was a result of an 'untoward incident' which happened when he was traveling in EMU passenger train GDM 1. That the deceased was self-employed and earning his livelihood by working as a painter. That the appellants are the widowed mother and sister of the deceased and were dependent upon the earnings of the deceased.
4. The railways defended the claim by pleading that the appellants are not entitled to any compensation as injuries which resulted in the death of the deceased were not accidental but self-inflicted injuries. That the deceased was not a bona fide passenger in the train. That the accident in question occurred when while trying to cross the railway track the deceased came into contact with the moving train. (Meaning thereby was run over while crossing the railway track)
5. In support of the claim appellants examined appellant No. 1 Jamirul Nisha mother of the deceased as AW-1 and one Mr.Manik Mian as AW-2 who claimed to have witnessed the said untoward incident.
6. In her testimony appellant No. 1 deposed on the lines of the claim application. She further deposed that on the unfaithful day i.e. 10.05.03 the deceased left his residence situated at Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi at about 8.15 in the morning. That the deceased told her that he is going to New Delhi for taking payment from some contractor. She also deposed how her son died.
7. Sh. Manik Mian AW-2 stated that the deceased was traveling under a valid ticket and that the death of the deceased was a result of an untoward incident. He deposed that on 10.05.2003 at about 8.15 AM he met the deceased near the booking counter of the Nizamuddin Station. That he purchased two tickets for a journey from Nizamuddin Station to the New Delhi Railway Station and gave one ticket to the deceased. That thereafter they boarded the EMU passenger train GDM1. That since the train was overcrowded they both got a place near the door of the compartment. That when the train was approaching Tilak Bridge railway station there was a sudden jerk due to which the deceased fell down from the train. That after the deceased fell down from the train he cried and requested other passengers to pull the alarm chain but the train did not stop. That thereafter he got down at the Tilak Bridge station and while going out of the platform he informed one railway official regarding the said incident.
8. It is relevant to note that in cross-examination AW-2 gave reason why he and the deceased were co-passengers. He stated as under: 'Mandawali is near Mother Dairy, Patparganj, Delhi. I was accompanying the deceased as I was to take him to Mandawali along with me. He had met at the station itself. I had not taken any money from the deceased for purchasing the ticket nor I received it after I had given the tick........