JUDGMENT
L. Mohapatra, J.
1. Claimants are the appellants before this Court challenging the judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A.No. 6 of 1999 rejecting the claim for compensation.
2. Claimants are the legal heirs of deceased Pratap Naik. The case of the claimants is that on 12.4.1997 the deceased after purchasing tickets from Titilagarh Railway Station boarded the Puri-Ahmedabad Express train at Titilagarh Railway Station. The deceased was to go to Kantabanjhi with his daughter who is one of the claimants. While entering the train, it started moving and suddenly stopped with a jerk as a result of which the deceased fell down from the train. Before the deceased could save himself, the train started moving and the deceased got serious injuries and ultimately died in the hospital. The further case of the claimants is that the deceased was traveling in the general compartment and the tickets purchased by him for self and his daughter were lost. Claim application was filed treating the accidental fall of the deceased as an “untoward incident”.
3. The respondent-Railways filed written-statement stating that there was no “untoward incident” at Titilagarh on the date alleged. The Railways also denied the allegations made in the claim petition. The Tribunal, on pleadings of the parties, framed five issues and with reference to the oral and documentary evidence adduced before it, held that there was no material to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and therefore on the above ground alone, disallowed the claim.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants challenging the impugned award submitted that the tickets having been lost, the claimants led oral evidence to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and the incident was an “untoward incident”. According to the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants, even if the tickets have not been produced before the Tribunal, on the basis of the oral evidence which stood uncontroverted, the Tribunal should have allowed the claim.
5. Shri B. Pal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Railways, submitted that the internal enquiries made by the Railways clearly indicate that the deceased was a hawker and not a passenger in the train and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition. It was also contended by Shri Pal that in absence of a ticket, there is hardly any scope for the Tribunal or any other Court to hold that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. He also referred to the evidence adduced on behalf of the Railways before the Tribunal.
6. Admittedly, the tickets claimed to have been purchased by the deceased for self and his daughter have not been produced before the Tribunal. Only oral evidence has been led in order to prove the aforesaid claim. Golapi Naik, who is the daughter of the deceased, was examined as A.W. 1. She in her deposition has stated that her father stood in the queue to purchase tickets for moving from Titilagarh to Kantabanjhi. She has also stated that as per instructions of her father, she had occupied one scat and kept another reserved for the deceased in Puri-Ahmedabad Express train. While the deceased was in the process of entering into the compartment, he fell down and at that point of time also the train started moving, as a result of the above, the deceased sustained serious injuries and was removed to the hospital where he died. She has also stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 25,000/- per annum. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that her father purchased two tickets and the colour of the tickets was brown. She could not say the exact fare of the ticket. An independent witness – Bajrang Lal Agarwala was examined as A.W.2. The said witness in his deposition has stated that on 12th April, 1997 he had been to Titilagarh to consult his Income-Tax Advocate and proceeded to Raipur by Puri-Ahmedabad Express train. While purchasing the ticket, someone standing in his front asked for change of Rs. 100/-. In the meantime, the train arrived and he boarded the train. Immediately after the train started, it stopped and he heard a hue and cry. When he got down from the train, he noticed the deceased lying in between the platform and the train and he identified the deceased as the person who was standing in his front while booking the ticket and asking for change of Rs. 100/-. In cross-examination, nothing has been brought out to disbelieve this witness.
7. On behalf of the Railways, the Chief Booking Supervisor of Titilagarh Railway Station was examined. This witness has stated that on 12.4.1997 there was no sale of any ticket for the train in question from Titilagarh to Kantabanjhi. In cross-examination, however, this witness has stated that forty-eight ordinary tickets were sold on that date from Titilagarh to Kantabanjhi. Therefore, this part of the deposition of the Chief Booking Supervisor supports the case of the claimant to the extent that the deceased had purchased tickets.
8. Now, the question that arises for consideration is whether or not the claim application could be allowed only on the basis of the oral evidence and in absence of the tickets. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of this Court in the case of Union of India represented by General Manager, Eastern Railway v. Jshna Kanhar, . In the said judgment, this Court held that there cannot be any dispute that a claimant has to prove that the deceased was a bona fide passenger in the train. In the said case, the deceased was a military personnel and was travelling in the train when the accident took place. The tickets could not be produced before the Tribunal and a stand was taken by the Railways that the deceased being a ticketless traveller was not a bona fide passenger. This Court considering the nature of the case held that when a passenger dies in an accident by falling from the train, that too at a distant place, it is not possible for the legal representatives to produce the ticket or other authorities for travelling in the train and in absence of the production of the ticket, it could be held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. Reliance was placed on a decision in the case of Union of India, Secunderabad v. B. Koddekar and Ors., 2002 (3) TAC 320 (AP). In the above reported case while the passenger was boarding the train, the train suddenly started moving and the passenger slipped and fell down and was run over by the train. While examining the case, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the burden does not lie on the dependants to prove bona fide of the passenger but the burden is on the Railways to prove that the deceased was a ticketless traveller or was not a bona fide passenger. In the case of Gullipalli Lakshmikanthamma v. General Manager, South Central Railway, 2003 ACJ 1582. In a similar situation, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed as follows :
“12. After considering the same, I am of the opinion that an inference can be drawn to the effect that the deceased is a bona fide passenger having regard to the realities and realistic and pragmatic approach of the question involved. It cannot invariably be conceived or comprehended that always ticket should be traced. One has to imagine the circumstances that will prevail at the relevant time and whether keeping of the ticket should be given that much of importance at the crucial time when the deceased was suffering from fatal injuries and died; ticket could have been missing. So from the material on record it must be held that deceased is a bona fide passenger.”
9. On consideration of the principles laid down by this Court as well as the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the aforesaid three cases, it goes without saying that even in absence of a ticket the question as to whether or not the deceased was a bona fide passenger can be proved by oral evidence and in this case there is ample evidence on record to show that the deceased had purchased tickets for travelling in the train. There is no dispute that accidental fall from a train comes within the definition of “untoward incident” and therefore I am of the view that the claimants are entitled to compensation.
10. I, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it appears that the deceased was 75 years old at the time of the accident and even accepting the claim of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 25,000/- per year, in my view, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) as compensation would be just and proper. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent shall pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) to the claimant-appellants within a period of three months from today.