The Supreme Court has held that mere absence of a ticket with the injured or deceased does not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger entitled to compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Court clarified that the initial burden lies on the claimant, which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts, after which the burden shifts to the Railways to rebut the claim. Essentially, the principle of strict liability flowing from Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 is clearly attracted in untoward incident cases involving accidental fall from a train.
The Apex Court also held that an investigation report under Rule 6 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, prepared after a delay of more than seven months from the incident, cannot be relied upon by the Railways. Hence, the Railways cannot take advantage of the delay on their own part in preparing the investigation report, and the absence of an immediate inquiry as required under the 2003 Rules operates as a factor against them.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Atul S. Chandurkar and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the High Court committed an error in reversing the award of the Tribunal. Reiterating the legal position laid down in Union of India vs. Rina Devi [2018 INSC 469], the Court held that mere absence of a ticket with the injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. The initial burden lies on the claimant, which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts, after which the burden shifts to the Railways.
The Court further observed that the victim had been hospitalised for over a month before succumbing to his injuries, making it unlikely that the railway ticket would have been preserved by the claimants. The Railways failed to discharge the burden that had shifted upon them, since their own witnesses admitted that they had not searched the pockets of the victim. On a preponderance of probabilities, the victim was held to be a bona fide passenger, and the absence of recovery of his ticket could not defeat the claim for compensation.
The principle of ‘strict liability’ flowing from Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, as held in Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Others [2008 INSC 577], was held to be clearly attracted. The Court further reiterated that the belated preparation of the investigation report, after a delay of more than seven months, could not be relied upon by the Railways, and the Railways could not take advantage of the delay on their own part.
Briefly, on Sep 27, 2017, one Maheshbhai, the son of the appellants, was travelling to Surat via Ahmedabad in the general compartment of a train. Between Sabarmati and Ahmedabad Railway Stations, he fell from the train on account of a sudden jerk and jolt, sustained multiple grievous injuries, and was hospitalised. He, however, succumbed to his injuries on Oct 31, 2017. The parents, being the claimants, filed a claim application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
The Railway Claims Tribunal held that Maheshbhai was a victim of an ‘untoward incident’ and had suffered an accidental fall, and granted compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the incident till the date of the order. Aggrieved, the Union of India preferred an appeal under Section 23 of the Act of 1987 before the Gujarat High Court, where the Single Judge held that there was no evidence of the victim having fallen from the train and that the incident could not be termed an ‘untoward incident’ as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
