The Supreme Court has reiterated that the mere absence of a railway ticket from an accident victim cannot, by itself, be a ground to reject a claim for compensation. The Court observed that where the claimant provides sufficient evidence showing that the deceased was travelling as a bona fide passenger, the burden can shift to the Railways to establish otherwise.
A Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by the parents of a deceased passenger and restoring the compensation awarded by the Railway Claims Tribunal, which had earlier been set aside by the Gujarat High Court.
Background Of The Case
The case arose from an incident in September 2017 involving the appellants’ son, who was travelling towards Surat via Ahmedabad. According to the claim, he fell from the train following a sudden jerk and suffered serious injuries. He was hospitalised and subsequently died in October 2017, after remaining in hospital for more than a month.
The deceased’s parents thereafter filed a compensation claim under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The Railway Claims Tribunal concluded that the deceased was a victim of an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
The Tribunal awarded ₹8 lakh compensation along with 9% interest per annum from the date of the incident.
The Union Government challenged the decision before the Gujarat High Court. The High Court held that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the deceased had fallen from a train and consequently rejected the claim.
The deceased’s parents then approached the Supreme Court.
Absence Of Ticket Not Sufficient To Reject Claim
Before the Supreme Court, it was argued that the deceased’s railway ticket had been lost along with his other personal belongings. His father had also stated on oath that his son ordinarily purchased a ticket before travelling.
The Supreme Court relied upon its earlier decision in Union of India v. Rina Devi, reiterating that the absence of a ticket with the victim does not automatically establish that the person was travelling without authority. A claimant can initially discharge the burden by placing relevant facts on record, following which the burden may shift to the Railways.
In the present case, the Court found that the deceased’s father had discharged the initial burden through his testimony.
Importantly, the Railways’ own witnesses admitted during cross-examination that they had not searched the deceased’s pockets for a railway ticket. The Court therefore held that the Railways had failed to discharge the burden which had shifted upon them.
Hospitalisation Also Relevant
The Supreme Court also considered the fact that the deceased remained hospitalised for more than one month before his death.
The Court observed that, in such circumstances, it was unlikely that the railway ticket would have been preserved by the family. Therefore, undue importance could not be given merely to the absence of the ticket, particularly when the father’s statement on oath and the surrounding circumstances supported the claim.
Delay In Railway Investigation Report
Another factor considered by the Supreme Court was the delay in preparation of the Railways’ investigation report.
The report under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 was prepared nearly seven months after the incident and only after the compensation claim had been filed.
Relying upon the principles discussed in Kalandi Charan Sahoo & Anr. v. General Manager, South-East Central Railways, Bilaspur, the Court held that the unexplained delay affected the evidentiary value of the report and declined to rely upon it.
Supreme Court’s Decision
Considering the evidence as a whole, the Supreme Court concluded, on the preponderance of probabilities, that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.
The Court further held that the principle of strict liability under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 was attracted in the circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Gujarat High Court’s decision and restored the Railway Claims Tribunal’s award of ₹8 lakh with 9% interest. The Railways were directed to satisfy the award within 30 days.
Legal Position
The judgment reiterates that a compensation claim arising from a railway accident cannot be rejected solely because the victim’s railway ticket is not available.
The claimant must initially place sufficient material before the Tribunal to establish the relevant facts. Once that initial burden is discharged, the Railways may be required to establish that the victim was not a bona fide passenger.
The decision also highlights the importance of considering the overall circumstances and available evidence, rather than treating the physical absence of a ticket as conclusive proof against the claimant.
