Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surya Kant, J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.
Kamukayi & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3799 of 2023 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 17062/2022)
Decided On : 16-05-2023
Railways Act, 1989 – Sections 123(c) and 124-A – Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 – Rule 7(2) – Death of passenger in untoward incident – Claim application dismissed by Claims Tribunal for not having journey ticket – 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 claimant which can be discharged by filing affidavit of relevant facts and burden will then shift on Railways and issue can be decided on facts shown or attending circumstances – Nothing has been placed before Claims Tribunal or brought on record during the course of hearing that Railway Administration has discharged burden of not having valid railway ticket with deceased passenger, except to say that during recovery ticket was not found – In absence of any cogent evidence, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensation as prescribed – It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased died in an untoward incident while travelling in a passenger Train and he was a bona fide passenger – Findings adversely recorded by Claims Tribunal and affirmed by High Court are perverse and set-aside – Appellants held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. from date of filing claim application till its realisation – After applying rate of interest, if final figure is less than Rs. 8,00,000/-, then appellants shall be entitled to Rs. 8,00,000/-. (Paras 10, 19 and 23)
Facts of the case:
High Court by the impugned judgment held that appellants had failed to establish any untoward incident or deceased was a bona fide passenger however upholding impugned judgement dated 29.06.2017 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, claim petition filed seeking compensation for the death of Muchamy @ Muthusamy was dismissed. Challenging both judgments, claimants/appellants are before this Court.
Findings of Court:
Appellants are held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing the claim application till its realisation. After applying the rate of interest, if final figure is less than Rs. 8,00,000/-, then appellants shall be entitled to Rs. 8,00,000/-. The amount of compensation be satisfied by the respondents within a period of eight weeks.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Key Points from the Legal Document:
The death of a passenger in an untoward incident on a railway does not require the passenger to possess a ticket at the time of the incident to establish their status as a bona fide passenger. The absence of a ticket alone cannot negate the claim for compensation, provided the claimant discharges the initial burden with relevant facts (!) (!) .
The initial burden of proof lies with the claimant, which can be satisfied by filing an affidavit detailing relevant facts. Once this burden is met, it shifts to the railway administration to disprove the claim by providing cogent evidence that the passenger was not a bona fide traveler or that the incident was not untoward (!) (!) .
An untoward incident includes the accidental falling of a passenger from a train while carrying passengers, and the railway administration is liable to pay compensation regardless of whether there was any wrongful act or neglect, as long as the incident qualifies as untoward and the passenger was traveling in a passenger train (!) (!) .
The legal framework establishes that a person who has purchased a valid ticket or platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident is entitled to compensation. The presence of a body on railway premises does not conclusively prove that the individual was a bona fide passenger, but the absence of a ticket does not automatically disprove it either. The assessment must be made based on facts and circumstances of each case (!) (!) .
The investigation reports, inquest reports, and official records supporting the occurrence of an untoward incident are crucial and should be considered valid evidence in establishing liability for compensation (!) (!) .
The burden of proving that the deceased was a bona fide passenger is primarily on the claimant, but once this is established through relevant evidence such as a purchased ticket, the railway must disprove it with cogent evidence. If the railway fails to do so, liability for compensation is established (!) (!) .
The amount of compensation payable is determined based on the applicable rules at the time of the incident, with provisions allowing for the calculation to be made according to the rules in force on the date of the accident, including interest from the date of the incident (!) (!) (!) .
The final compensation amount can be adjusted to ensure it meets or exceeds a prescribed minimum threshold, taking into account amendments to relevant rules and the applicable interest rate, to ensure the claimant receives fair compensation (!) (!) .
The courts have the authority to set aside findings that are perverse or unsupported by evidence, and to direct that the railway be liable for compensation if the evidence indicates the occurrence of an untoward incident and the passenger was traveling bona fide (!) (!) .
In cases where the incident occurred while the passenger was traveling for medical treatment or other legitimate reasons, and the evidence supports the occurrence of an untoward incident, the railway’s liability for compensation is affirmed, even if the passenger did not possess a ticket at the time of the incident (!) (!) .
These key points encapsulate the principles and procedural considerations for claims related to railway accidents, emphasizing the importance of evidence, the shifting burden of proof, and the criteria for liability and compensation.
JUDGMENT :
J.K. Maheshwari, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 26.03.2021 passed by the High Court of judicature of Madras in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2442/2019 filed by appellants. The High Court by the impugned judgment held that appellants had failed to establish any untoward incident or the deceased was a bona fide passenger however upholding the impugned judgment dated 29.06.2017 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, claim petition filed seeking compensation for the death of Muchamy @ Muthusamy was dismissed. Challenging both the judgments, the claimants/appellants are before this Court.
3. Succinctly stated, facts of this case are that on 27.09.2014 the deceased-Muchamy @ Muthusamy (husband of appellant 1 and father of appellants 2 and 3) was required to go for medical treatment to Government Hospital, Karur. He reached Lalapettai Railway Station along with his son (appellant 3), who purchased the railway ticket of Karur and handed over to deceased who boarded Train No. 56841- Trichy Erode Passenger to reach Karur. When the train reached Mahadanapuram Railway Station, due to heavy crowd in the compartment and jolting of the train, the deceased unexpectedly fell down from the running train between the platform and track at KM 90/200-300 and sustained grave injuries including decapitation and amputation of right hand. The deceased died on the spot. FIR was lodged in Railway Police Station, Karur, the inquest report was prepared and the final report had also been submitted which clearly reveals that death of the deceased was an outcome of untoward railway incident. The postmortem conducted in the Government Hospital, Karur indicates that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage because of injuries on vital organs and decapitation of head. The claim petition was filed on 25.07.2016 before the Railway claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 4 Lakhs with 12% interest per annum from the date of filing of application till its realisation.
4. The respondents contested the claim taking defence that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger because his journey ticket was not found and only white coloured torn shirt in a mutilated condition with rose colour design lungi and red coloured underwear was recovered from the spot. As per the inquest report, the dead body was found with head decapitated at the level of right shoulder. It is stated that if deceased had fallen from running train, his body would not have been found outside the railway track. However, looking to the nature of injuries, as mentioned in Post-Mortem Report, the allegation of death of the deceased due to untoward incident was denied, therefore Southern Railway is not liable to pay any compensation.
5. The record reveals that the claim petition was filed with some delay which was condoned as per order dated 01.11.2016 by the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal by its judgment dated 29.06.2017 dismissed the claim application holding that the appellants have failed to prove the death of deceased in an untoward incident and he was not a bona fide passenger making the Railway liable for grant of compensation. The Claims Tribunal was influenced by the statement of one D. Ravishankar, Station Master before whom the search of dead body was made in the presence of deceased’s son and at that time, journey ticket was not found with the body. The Claims Tribunal has also relied upon the sketch map and post-mortem report, while nonsuiting the appellants.
6. On filing Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2442 of 2019 before the High Court, it was dismissed making an observation that the findings of Claims Tribunal are not perverse as the deceased was not found to be a bona fide passenger and appellants have failed to prove the death of deceased is an outcome of untoward incident.
7. Assailing those findings, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the FIR, inquest report dated 27.09.2014 and th
Death of passenger in untoward incident – Mere absence of ticket with injured or deceased will not negative claim that he was a bona fide passenger.
Mere absence of ticket does not negate bonafide passenger status; affidavit suffices to discharge burden. Falling from running train is untoward incident under no-fault liability, entitling dependent....
The absence of a ticket does not negate the presumption of a passenger's status, and the Railway is liable for compensation under section 124-A for untoward incidents.
The absence of a valid ticket does not negate the presumption of a passenger's bona fide status, and the Railway Administration is strictly liable for untoward incidents.
The court established that the absence of a ticket does not disqualify a deceased from being considered a bona fide passenger under the Railways Act.
Accidental fall from running train constitutes untoward incident for bonafide passenger; affidavit discharges initial burden, shifting to railways on preponderance of probabilities; no-fault compensa....
The absence of a ticket does not negate the claim of a deceased being a bona fide passenger under the Railway Act, and compensation is payable under strict liability principles.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
