Union of India (UOI) vs Smt. Madhav Kumari

Heard learned Counsel for the parties''.

One Jai Vir Singh died in a rail accident while travelling in Train No. 5708 Dn Amritsar Katihar Express on 23.8.2001. He was having second class ordinary journey ticket which alleged to have been lost in the incident. He accidentally fell down from the train in question near Etawah railway station and died on the spot. Inquest report was prepared. The dependent of the deceased Jai Vir Singh had approached the Tribunal for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00000/-. The tribunal by impugned award awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00000/- to Smt. Madhav Kumari wife of the deceased and Rs. 1,00000/- to Shri Vir Singh the son of the deceased. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred u/s 123 of the Railways Act.

While assailing the impugned award it has been stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger, hence, dependents are not entitled for any compensation under the Act. It has been stated by the respondent''s counsel that admittedly, Jai Vir Singh was traveling in the train on 23.8.2001 and fell down from the train in question near Etawah and died on the spot.

The submission of learned Counsel for the respondents is that while falling down from the train the ticket must have been lost and there shall be presumption u/s 114 of the Evidence Act with regard to bonafide passenger.

Learned Counsel for the respondents has relied upon a Division Bench (of which one of us Justice Devi Prasad Singh was the Member) Judgment of Smt. Akhtari v. Union of India through G.M. NER. Gorakhpur reported in 2009 (27) LCD 240 where after considering the identical circumstances and after interpreting Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 relying upon Apex Court Judgment reported in 2008 (2) T.A.C. 777 (S.C.) Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Ors. has been settled the law that burden to prove that a person suffered in the accident was not having ticket lies on the shoulder of railways. In the present case, no evidence was led by the appellant to establish that petitioner was not having ticket. Loss of ticket in the rail accident can not be ruled out. A person travelling in train shall deem to possess ticket unless proved otherwise by cogent evidence. Attention has been drawn towards Section 114 of the Evidence Act read with Section 68 of the Railways Act while holding that deceased was bonafide passenger. The finding recorded by the tribunal after considering various pronouncements of this Court and Apex Court seem to be well reasoned Judgment and does not suffer from any impropriety or illegality.

Appellant shall deposit rest of the amount within a period of two months before the Tribunal and Tribunal shall proceed in terms of the award. The appeal is devoid of merit accordingly dismissed.