1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1440 OF 2003 Union of India .. Appellant V/s Smt.Naseebabi Sulaiman Shaikh .. Respondent Mr.A.N.Samant for the Appellant. CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 10th June, 2010 P.C. : 1. This appeal is preferred by the Union of India challenging the judgment and order dated 4th June, 2003 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai (for short the Tribunal). By that judgment, the Tribunal allowed the claim application made by the Respondent and awarded compensation of Rs.4 lakhs to be paid by the Railway Administration to the Respondent. Appellant herein was given 60 days time to make the payment of compensation, failing which, the Respondent was entitled to interest @ 6% p.a from the date of the order till the amount is paid. 2. The facts and the circumstances giving rise to the filing of the first appeal, briefly stated, are as follows: The Respondent filed claim application u/s.16 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short the Act), claiming compensation of Rs.4 lakhs on account of death of Kadar Sulaiman Shaikh, son of the Respondent in an untoward incident. It is her case that the deceased son was aged about 16 years. He was working as a helper, and while traveling in a local train running between the Mahalakshmi and Lower Parel he fell down on 20th May, 2001. 2 He sustained several severe injuries and as a result, died on the spot. 3. The appellant resisted the claim by filing the written statement and denied all the contentions. It was asserted that the alleged incident cannot be termed as an untoward incident as defined u/s.123(c) of the Act. 4. Mr.Samant, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and that the Respondent failed to prove that the deceased while traveling in a local train on 20th May, 2001 fell down and as a result thereof died in an untoward incident. 5. The Respondent examined herself. During the course of examination she deposed that she could not produce the ticket, pass and other articles of the deceased as they were soaked with the blood and she disposed all those articles. 6. The Madras High Court in the case of D.Rajathi and Others V/s.Union of India, dated 26th April, 2000, held that it is the duty of the Railway Administration to prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. Relying upon this decision, the Tribunal held that the appellant herein had not produced any evidence to show that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. In the absence of any evidence from the appellant herein, coupled with the evidence of the Respondent herein, the Tribunal held that the deceased was a banafide passenger. I do not find that the Tribunal committed any error in arriving at this conclusion. The conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is based upon the material on record. In view of this, I do not find any substance in the contention raised by the appellant that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger. 3 7. It was further submitted that the death of the deceased Kadar Shaikh is not an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Act. The Tribunal considered the material on record in this behalf. Exhibit E is the memo issued by the Station Master, Lower Parel Station, in connection with the incident, wherein it is mentioned that one unknown male passenger aged about 20 years fell down by unknown down local train between Mahalakshmi and Parel KM 7/2 nearest poll of 7/2 of UP and Dn local line between track and killed. The Inquest panchanama at Exh.A also confirmed that the person had falled down from the unknown down local train near KM 7/2 of Lower Parel Station and died on the spot due to severe head injury and bleedings from mouth and nose. Exhibit D is the copy of Post Mortem report showing the probable cause of death as traumatic fracture of skull, subarachnoid hemorrhage and shock. 8. Considering the material on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased fell down accidentally from the running train which is an untoward incident in terms of section 123(c) of the Act. I do not find that the Tribunal committed any error while arriving at this conclusion. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the Respondent deposed in her evidence that the deceased was her only son and he was the only earning member in her family after the death of her husband. No evidence to the contrary was led by the appellant herein. Considering the provisions of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules 1990, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4 lakhs. 9. Considering the material on record, I do not find that the order passed by 4 the Tribunal is perverse or that there is any error committed by the Tribunal while allowing the claim made by the Applicant (claimant). In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. There shall be however no order as to costs. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)