Back
AP High Court: Absence of ticket does not bar compensation for passenger
Rules Lack of Ticket Not Fatal to Claim
In a significant ruling that clarifies the burden of proof in railway accident claims, the has held that the mere absence of a journey ticket from a deceased passenger’s belongings does not automatically disqualify them from being considered a passenger. The decision sets aside a contrary finding by the Railway Claims Tribunal and awards ₹8 lakh compensation to the parents of a young man who died after falling from a train.
Case Background: A Fatal Fall
The deceased, a bachelor and engineering graduate, boarded Train No. 57229 at Tanuku Railway Station on the night of , to visit his paternal uncle in Srikakulam district. His father, who accompanied him to the station, had purchased the passenger ticket. While the train was in motion near Tuni Railway Station, the deceased allegedly slipped due to sudden jerks and fell between the platform and the train, sustaining severe crush injuries that proved fatal.
The parents filed a claim before the , seeking compensation under , which provides for "no fault" liability in untoward incidents.
Tribunal’s Finding: No Ticket, No Passenger
The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the petition, holding that since no journey ticket was found on the deceased, he could not be treated as a passenger. The Tribunal relied on the absence of a ticket as conclusive evidence of ticketless travel.
Arguments Before the High Court
The appellants, represented by , argued that the ticket could easily have been lost during the chaotic aftermath of the accident, especially when the deceased was handled by multiple persons and agencies while being shifted to hospital. They pointed out that other belongings—certificates, cash, and a mobile phone—were found intact, suggesting that the ticket was simply misplaced.
The Railways, through Central Government Counsel , contended that the deceased was not a passenger and that the injuries were "self-inflicted" as he had attempted to board a moving train from the off-side.
Legal Analysis: Precedents Guide the Way
Justice Balaji Medamalli, presiding over the appeal, examined the legal framework and earlier decisions. The Court referred to the landmark judgment in
v. Rina Devi
(2019), where the
held that
"mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a
passenger
."
The initial burden lies on the claimant to file an affidavit of relevant facts; thereafter, the burden shifts to the Railways.
The High Court also cited Doli Rani Saha v. (2024), which reaffirmed the principle that once the claimant has discharged the initial burden by filing an affidavit, the Railways must rebut it. In this case, the parents had specifically pleaded that the father purchased the ticket, and the Railways failed to produce any evidence to the contrary.
On the issue of "," the Court relied on Rina Devi ’s observation that such a defence requires an intention to cause injury, not mere negligence. Death or injury while boarding or alighting from a train constitutes an "" under Section 124-A.
Key Observations
The High Court made several noteworthy observations:
“In the instant case, the claimants have placed the facts regarding the purchase of ticket by the father of the deceased, and the said fact was pleaded, as such, the department is required to rebut the same.”
“The concept of ‘self inflicted injury’ would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree.”
“The absence of a journey ticket from the possession of the deceased will not change his status as a passenger.”
The Court also noted that the Railways had failed to conduct a timely investigation as mandated by the , which requires completion within 60 days. The report was submitted only after the claim was filed.
Court’s Decision: Compensation Granted
Setting aside the Tribunal’s judgment dated , the High Court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. It directed the , through the , to pay ₹8,00,000 as compensation to the parents in equal shares. The amount must be paid within two months from receipt of the order.
The decision reinforces that passenger status can be established even without a ticket, provided the claimant presents credible evidence of travel. It also clarifies that the Railways cannot escape liability by merely pointing to the absence of a ticket or alleging without proving intent.
Case Title: Case No.: C.M.A. No. 159 of 2021 Counsel for Appellants: Geetha Madhuri N.S. Counsel for Respondent: J.U.M.V. Prasad, Central Government Counsel
