Arun Kumar Sharma, J.
1. The appellants have preferred present appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 being aggrieved by judgment dated 01/10/2021 passed in OA-(IIu)/BPL/050/2020 (Motilal Markam & one another Vs. Union of India) by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, whereby Tribunal dismissed the claim application of the appellants on the ground that this incident not regarded as a untoward incident and Sandeep Markam was not a bona fide passenger.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30/04/2019, one Sandeep Markam has boarded Jabalpur-Indore train after holding an unreserved ticket bearing No. ULB-58984555 from Madan Mahal to Hoshangabad (Ex. A/8), while on the way Sandeep Markam, owing to heavy rush and push of passengers, Sandeep Markam fallen down from the train and succumbed to his injuries and died on the spot near Kareli Railway Station. Due to this untoward incident, Appellants has filed claim application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Bhopal Bench, Bhopal for claiming amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- on account of death of Sandeep Markam. However, the said application was dismissed by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellants have preferred the present appeal before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has not given emphasis of passenger, which is mentioned in Section 2(29) of Railway Act-1989, which is reproduced here as follows:- Passenger means a person travelling with valid pass or ticket, therefore, appellants have satisfied the ingredient of Section 2(29) of Railway Act-1989 and they produced unreserved ticket bearing no. ULB-58984555 from Madan Mahal to Hoshangabad (Ex. A/8) purchased by the deceased Sandeep Markam and respondents doesn't have challenged the validity of this ticket in his return/reply and even Railway Administration filed DRM report R-1, which clearly shows that during investigation, we are verify that unreserved ticket bearing no. ULB-58984555 issued by Ticket Window at Madan Mahal Railway Station on 30/04/2019 from Madan Mahal to Hoshangabad (Ex. A/8). It is further submits that the Tribunal was committed grave error in not appreciating the settled principle of law laid down by Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Union of India Versus Rina Devi 2018 ACJ 1441 on the point of bonafideness of passengers in paragraph 17.4 are reproduced here as follows:-mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant, which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant fact and burden will then shift on the Railway and issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. Under these circumstances, deceased will be regarded as bona fide passenger on account of the fact that affidavit of appellants has been filed on record, which satisfied the initial burden on part of the appellants; whereas the respondent/Railway could not produce any witness in rebutting this fact. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amuly Chandra Kalita Vs. Union of India, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 181 held that the Single Member, who is an administrative or a non judicial member cannot decide the cases while acting as a Single Member and therefore, even, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. B.R. Thakre reported in (2002) 10 SCC 338 ; opined that if all powers of the Tribunal are to be exercised by Single Member, it can only be by a Judicial Member of the Tribunal and not any other Member of the Tribunal. It is further submitted that Member (Technical) has no jurisdiction to pass an order or adjudicate this matter. Learned Tribunal committed grave error in not appreciating the fact that in absence of specific evidence regarding knock down from any train or jumped from any train, presumption ought to have been drawn in favour of the appellants regarding as untoward incident according to direction given by Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar and others (2008) 9 SCC 527 .
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer by contending that the Railway Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in rejecting the claim application of the appellants. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the respondent prays for dismissal of the appeal.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. From the perusal of the record, it appears that Railway Administration filed DRM report R-1, which clearly shows that during investigation, we are verify that unreserved ticket bearing no. ULB-58984555 issued by Ticket Window at Madan Mahal Railway Station on 30/04/2019 from Madan Mahal to Hoshangabad (Ex. A/8) and respondents doesn't have challenged the validity of this ticket in his return/reply; therefore, learned Claims Tribunal committed grave error in rejecting the claim application filed by the appellants on the ground that Sandeep Markam was not a bona fide passenger, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, present appeal stands allowed by setting aside of judgment dated 01/10/2021 passed in OA-(IIu)/BPL/050/2020 (Motilal Markam & one another Vs. Union of India) by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench. Consequently, the matter is remanded back to the Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench with a direction to decide the claim application filed by the appellants afresh in the light of judgments of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Amuly Chandra Kalita Vs. Union of India, Union of India Versus Rina Devi, State of M.P. Vs. B.R. Thakre & Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar and others Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar and others (supra), without being influenced by the observation made by this court in the present order.
6. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal for information and necessary compliance.
7. Certified copy as per rules.
