MUHAMMED KUNJU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants of a victim in a railway accident have come up with this appeal, as their petition for compensation was dismissed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The untoward incident occurred on 16.8.1997, when the deceased Muhammed Ashraff was travelling in a train between Thiruvananthapuram and Karunagappally. He fell out of the train. The train was stopped. Immediately, he was taken to the hospital by the fellow passengers. On the way to the hospital he succumbed to the injuries. Compensation was claimed by the appellants. Necessary evidence to show that he was a passenger was produced in the form of Ext. P5, a photocopy of the identity card issued by the Railways and Ext. P6, the original thereof. The Tribunal found that the accompaniment to Ext. P5, the season ticket, had not been produced and therefore, it cannot be taken that he was a bona fide passenger. The claim petition was dismissed.

(2.) It is contended by the appellants that in the light of Ext. P5, the claimants have discharged their burden to show that he had been a passenger in the train. In such circumstances, it is upon the railway to show that he was not a bona fide passenger and that he did not have a ticket at the time of accident. That burden had never been discharged by the railway. In support of this contention the decision reported in Joli C. John v. Union of India, 2002 (1) KLT 678 , is relied on. It is further submitted that the railways did not have a quarrel as to the fact that the death occurred as a result of a fall from a running train. Necessarily, in order to compute the compensation the schedule to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 as amended on 1.11.1997, on which date the claim petition was pending, shall have to be applied and being a case of death an amount of Rs.4 lakhs has to be awarded. The decision of the Tribunal has therefore to be reversed, it is urged.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of Railway Administration that Ext.A6 does not contain the thumb impression or signature of the person to whom that identity card had been issued. Therefore, it is not a valid document. Moreover, Ext. P6 as such does not have any validity unless it is accompanied by the season ticket. Necessarily, in the absence of the season ticket, Ext.A6 does not have any validity by itself. So it does not prove that he was a passenger with a ticket at the time of accident. It cannot also be ruled out that there was no attempt of suicide to attract the proviso to S.124A of the Railways Act, 1989, contends the counsel for the Railways.