SAN v. This appeal coming on for hearing this day, court passed

Between:- SMT.SANGEETA BAI W/O LATE SHRI PRASAN KUMAR JAIN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. KU. MUSKAN JAIN D/O LATE SHRI PRASAN KUMAR JAIN, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O GRAM MUDARA JARUAKHEDA CHANDAMAU DIST. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH) KU. KHUSHI JAIN D/O LATE SHRI PRASAN KUMAR JAIN, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O GRAM MUDARA JARUAKHEDA CHANDAMAU DIST. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH) KU. PRIYA JAIN D/O SHRI PRASAN KUMAR JAIN, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/O GRAM MUDARA JARUAKHEDA CHANDAMAU DIST. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH) KU. MAHAK JAIN D/O SHRI PRASAN KUMAR JAIN, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER OF SMT. SANGEETA JAIN W/O LATE SHRI PRASAN KUMAR JAIN R/O GRAM MUDARA JARUAKHEDA CHANDAMAU DIST. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH) HIMANSHU JAIN S/O SHRI PRASAN KUMAR JAIN, AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER OF SMT. SANGEETA JAIN W/O LATE SHRI PRASAN KUMAR JAIN R/O GRAM MUDARA JARUAKHEDA CHANDAMAU DIST. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH) (BY SHRI JANAK LAL SONI, ADVOCATE) .....PETITIONER Signature Not Verified SAN AND UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER WESTERN CENTRAL RAILWAY JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 2 (BY SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN TIWARI, ADVOCATE) .....RESPONDENTS This appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the following: ORDER This miscellaneous appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 being aggrieved of judgment dated 29.9.2015 passed by the Member(s), Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Case No.OA/IIU/BPL/2012/0291 rejecting the injury claim filed by Prasan Kumar Jain on the ground that he could not establish that he was a bonafide passenger possessing valid ticket to travel by Rail.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that merely on the basis of certain minor contradictions, the impugned judgment has been passed overlooking the factual position. The dispute/contradiction in the case is that the claimant had given evidence that two separate tickets were purchased by him and his Co-passenger whereas Co-passenger and Witness Dinesh Kumar Jain deposed that he and injured Prasan Kumar Jain were travelling on a combined passenger ticket and, therefore, such minor contradictions cannot be used to defeat the just and genuine claim of the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants places reliance on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Pushpa Devi versus General Manager 2015 (1) M.P.L.J 593 wherein it is held that if the deceased got down at platform either to quench his thirst or he might have found difficult to board Signature Not Verified SAN train due to crowd when it started moving then it cannot be said that the deceased was not acting like a prudent man and deliberated a self inflicted 3 injury.

Reliance is also placed on another Coordinate Bench Judgement of this Court in Baldev Raikwar versus Union of India 2013 (2) M.P.H.T 62 wherein it is held that where there is evidence that the deceased had purchased the requisite ticket and there was no evidence in rebuttal then the burden is on the Railway Administration to prove that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and since this burden was not discharged by the Railway Administration, the Court held that the deceased was a bonafide passenger. Learned counsel for the respondent though opposes the prayer for allowing the appeal but is not in a position to show any document from record that any evidence was led on behalf of the Railway Administration to rebut the fact that the passenger was not a bonafide passenger. In view of such fact, when the Railway Administration has not rebutted the evidence of Co-accused Dinesh Kumar Jain and it is established that claimant Prasan Kumar Jain sustained grievous injury on his right leg along with other injuries as a result of which his right leg was amputated then in the light of the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Pushpa Devi versus General Manager (supra), it cannot be said that it was a self inflicted injury or the injury sustained was on account of his own criminal act as defined in Exception (b) & (c) under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.