Case: Kamrunnissa Vs. Union of India

3. Only if the above query is answered in affirmative, the petitioner herein would be entitled to compensation from the railway authorities.The Railway Claims Tribunal, as also the High Court of Karnataka, while adjudicating upon the controversy raised by the petitioner, have arrived at a conclusion, that the petitioner could not establish that her deceased husband, Gafoor Sab, had purchased a ticket, and was in the process of boarding the train at Devanagere railway station, when the accident had taken place.

Court's reasoning:
6. We have considered the contentions advanced at the hands of the rival parties. We are of the view, that the issue in hand can be determined on the basis of paragraphs 7 & 8 of the inquest report, submitted by the Assistant Commissioner, Railway Police Station,perusal of the aforesaid report reveals, that the body of the deceased, Gafoor Sab, was found on road. It is, therefore, not possible for us to accept, that the railway accident in question had taken place when the deceased was boarding the train on the railway station.The afore stated report also reveals, that the body of the deceased had been cut into two pieces, and was lying next to the railway track. The report further indicates, that the intestine of the deceased had come out of the body. The above factual position reveals, that the body was cut into two pieces from the stomach. This can be inferred from the facts expressed in the inquest report, that the intestines of the deceased had come out of the body. It is not possible for us to accept, that such an accident could have taken place while boarding a train.In addition to the factual position emerging out of a perusal of paragraphs 7 & 8 extracted herein above, the report also reveals, that besides a pocket diary having been found from the person of the deceased a few telephone numbers were also found, but importantly, the deceased was not in possession of any other article. This further clears the position adopted by the railway authorities, namely, that the deceased Gafoor Sab, was not in possession of a ticket, for boarding the train at the Devangere railwayperusal of the First Information Report, leaves no room for any doubt, that the deceased was seen coming from the direction of Bangalore, and while crossing the railway track, he having not noticed the oncoming train, was over run by the train. In view of the factual position depicted in the First Information Report, as also the inquest report, we find no justification in entertaining a challenge to the orders passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, as also, by the High Court, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner.