Back
2026 Supreme(AP) 1041
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.SUJATHA, J.
Gedela Veera Venkata Satyanarayana S/o Late G.Surya Rao - Appellant
Vs.
The Union Of India - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 208 of 2021
Decided On : 09-04-2026
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P L Rao
For the Respondent: Jupudi V K Yagnadutt(Central Government Counsel)
The Railways Act being a beneficial legislation requires a liberal interpretation; technical discrepancies, such as boarding at a station different from the ticket origin, do not negate the status of a 'bona fide passenger' if the incident was an untoward incident and the claim is otherwise substantiated.
Headnote:(A) Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 123(c) and 124-A - Untoward incident - Death of passenger - Compensation - Bona fide passenger - Presumption - Mere absence of ticket or slight technical discrepancy in boarding station does not negate status as bona fide passenger when journey intent is supported by record - Railways Act is a beneficial legislation requiring liberal interpretation. (Paras 9, 13, 14)
(B) Burden of Proof - Initial burden on claimant to prove untoward incident - Once initial burden is discharged, burden shifts to Railways to disprove the claim - Failure by Railways to rebut evidence leads to presumption in favor of claimant. (Paras 9, 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
The deceased attempted to board a train at a station (Kakinada Port) while holding a journey ticket issued from the previous station (Kakinada Town). He fell from the train and died. The Tribunal dismissed the claim on the technical ground that the boarding station differed from the ticket origin station and the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The appellate court reviewed whether this technicality could defeat the claim under the Railways Act.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the Railways Act, as beneficial legislation, bars a purely technical approach. Since the possession of a valid ticket was proven and the incident was an untoward incident, denying compensation based on the specific boarding platform within the same vicinity was perverse.
Issues: Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger entitled to compensation under the Railways Act, 1989, and whether the technical discrepancy in boarding station warrants the dismissal of the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The Act requires a liberal interpretation; the primary burden is on the claimant to show the death occurred during a rail journey, after which the burden shifts to the Railways to prove the deceased was not a bona fide traveler. Technical inconsistencies regarding the boarding point, when the journey intent and ticket are valid, do not deprive beneficiaries of statutory compensation.
Result: Appeal allowed. Compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- awarded.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background and factual context of the untoward incident. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. summary of tribunal issues and lower court findings. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. contentions regarding burden of proof and definition of bona fide passenger. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. rejection of technical grounds for excluding bona fide passenger status. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. application of established judicial precedents on burden of proof. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. final determination on liability and quantum of compensation. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT:
V.SUJATHA, J.
Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by The Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravati Bench, at Guntur (in short 'the learned Tribunal') in O.AII/(U)/380/2013, dated 12.03.2021 the applicants have preferred the present appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the cases are as follows:
The deceased, a resident of Parimitadaka Village, was working as a Junior Assistant and Bill Collector in the Panchayat Office at Addategala. With a view to travel to Hyderabad to obtain permanent orders relating to his employment, he purchased a journey ticket bearing No. 48956357 on 28.11.2011 at about 19:45 hours for travel from Kakinada to Secunderabad. While attempting to board Train No. 12737 (Gautami Express) on Platform No. 1, the train suddenly started moving, and due to the jerks of the train coupled with heavy passenger crowd, he accidentally slipped and fell down, sustaining grievous injuries. He was shifted in an ambulance, where he was declared dead. Hence, the claim petition.
4. The respondent–Railways filed a written statement denying the averments made in the claim application, inter alia contending that the claim does not fall within the ambit of Sections 123(c) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. It is stated that the Guard of Train No.12737 on 28.11.2011 did not receive any report of any untoward incident. It is further stated that, as per R.Babu Rao, HC-136, who was on duty, the deceased attempted to alight from the empty rake of Train No.12737 (Express) while it was being placed on Platform No.1, and in that process, he slipped and fell down. It is also contended that though the deceased had purchased a general ticket to travel from Kakinada Town to Secunderabad, he boarded the train at Kakinada Port Railway Station, which is a different station. Further, the act of boarding or alighting from a running train is impermissible; therefore, the applicants are not entitled to any compensation. The respondent also filed the Divisional Railway Manager's report, marked as Ex.R1, wherein it is stated that the deceased was in possession of a railway journey ticket bearing No. 48956357; however, he attempted to alight from the empty rake of Train No. 12737 and fell from the running train between Platform No. 1 and the train at Kakinada Port Railway Station, while holding a journey ticket issued from Kakinada Town Railway Station.
5. During enquiry, the Tribunal framed issues for determination would be:
1) Whether the Applicant(s) is/are dependent(s) of the deceased?
2) Whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger of the train in question and died as a result of an untoward incident?
3. Whether the Applicant(s) is/are entitled to the compensation as claimed and to what relief?
6. During enquiry, the appellant No.1 was examined as AW-1 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the Respondent, no witness was examined; however, Ex.B1/Divisional Railway Manager's report was marked.
7. The learned Tribunal, after hearing on both sides, holding that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger and, accordingly, dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed.
8. Heard Mr.P.L.Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Jupudi V.K.Yagnadutt, learned Central Government Counsel for the Respondent.
9. During t
