H.L. Meena JUDGMENT
1. Case in hand has been preferred before this Tribunal by the wife and sons of the deceased being sole dependants under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs. 16,55,000/- together with interest on account of death of Shri Kaluram in an alleged untoward incident.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 13/2/2013 deceased Shri Kaluram commenced his journey from Delhi Cantt. to Narnaul by a passenger train named Delhi? Udaipur Chetak Express holding a valid second class railway journey ticket bearing No. 95214044 and during journey when the said train was running shorter to Narnaul railway station near Kms. 50/8-9, deceased Kaluram due to a sudden jerk by the train and resultant loss of balance, accidentally fell down from the running train and suffered multiple grievous injuries. It has further been averred in the claim application that the injuries suffered by the deceased ultimately proved fatal and he died as a result thereof. Further, the Government Railway Police, Narnaul on receipt of information about this mishap, registered an FIR bearing No. 21/2013 dated 13/2/2013 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and completed other mandatory formalities including postmortem on the dead body. Thereafter, the dead body was handed over to the family members for last rites.
3. To strengthen their claim, the applicants have placed on record copies of the memo issued by the Station Supdt., Narnaul, FIR, Postmortem Report, Fard Jabti railway journey ticket, railway journey ticket, statement of Smt. Amar Bai and Shri Ravindra Kumar, Identity Cards of the applicants and Family Ration Card.
4. On receipt of notice, the respondent railway administration appeared before the Tribunal and filed its written statement along with the original DRM's Report pleading therein that the averments made in the claim application are false and baseless and the present claim application has been filed by the applicants to take undue monetary benefits. The deceased did not die as a result of fall from the running train but died during trespass for which the respondent railway administration cannot be held liable to pay compensation. It has been pleaded on behalf of respondent that there is no eye-witness to the alleged incident and the dead body was detected only at 23.55 hours during patrolling whereas the alleged train reached there at about 22.01 hours. No ticket was recovered from the possession of the deceased and ticket so produced on behalf of applicants, is an arranged one and as such the deceased was not a bona fide passenger of the alleged train. On the basis of these and other pleas, dismissal of the claim application has been sought by the respondent.
5. Based upon the pleadings of the parties and material made available on record, following issues were framed:-
1- Whether the deceased was traveling on a valid railway journey ticket and was a bona fide passenger of the train in question at the relevant time?
2- Whether the alleged incident does not fall under the definition of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 and the Railway Administration is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicants?
3- Whether the applicants are the sole dependants of the deceased and are entitled to compensation as claimed under Para-16 of the claim application?
4- What relief?
6. In the evidence, applicant No. 1 Smt. Amar Bai and applicant No. 2 Shri Ravindra Kumar have filed their examination-in-chief on affidavits. Documents made available on record on behalf of applicants were exhibited as A/1 to A/9. Both the aforesaid deponents were cross-examined by learned counsel for the respondent on 22/9/2014.
7. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of respondent railway administration.
FINDINGS
8. We have carefully gone through the pleadi........