The court clarified that the Railways Act mandates strict liability for compensation in railway accidents, with exceptions only when self-inflicted injuries can be clearly proven.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

The applicants, who are parents of the deceased, have filed this appeal questioning the order dated 01.08.2016 passed in OA II U 13/2015 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) whereby, the claim application filed by the applicants was dismissed on the reason that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and his death was not due to the Railway accident.

2. The facts are that the claimants are the parents of the deceased, who have filed the claim petition by stating that on 21.12.2014, the deceased, after visiting his friend, while returning from Bangarpet to Bangalore in a train with journey ticket, lost his balance, slipped and accidentally fell down from a moving train, sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

3. The claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed by the Tribunal on the reason that though the deceased was found to be a bona fide passenger, he died either committing suicide or got run over while crossing the track and thus inflicted injuries upon himself.

Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

4. Heard arguments from both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

5. The Tribunal while considering the materials on record has held that the deceased was found to be a bona fide passenger. In order to prove the case, on behalf of appellants, appellant No.1 - Mr. G N Naganna was examined as AW-I and got marked documentary evidence as Exs.A-1 to A-11, which are FIR, Inquest Report, Messages from Station Master, Post Mortem Report dated 22.12.2014, the copies of Aadhar cards, Ration card and Final Report drawn by the Enquiry officer and Police.

6. Ex.R1 is the DRM's Statuory Report, in which, it is stated that the journey ticket was recovered from the deceased. Therefore, when the journey ticket was recovered from the deceased, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, but the reason given by the Tribunal is only on the assumption that the deceased died either by committing suicide or got run over while crossing the track and thus inflicted injuries to himself. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal is not correct when the deceased was found to be having journey ticket and it could not be run over while crossing the track, but proved bona fide passenger. Therefore, the Tribunal is not correct in dismissing the claim application.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DOLI RANI SAHA VS. UNION OF INDIA , [(2024) 9 SCC 656] in paragraph No.13 has held as under:

"13. From the recapitulation of the various judicial pronouncements leading to the present appeal, it can be seen that the primary issue is whether the deceased was travelling on the train in question. In Rina Deva (supra), a two-Judge Bench of this Court considered the question of the party on which the burden of proof will lie in cases where the body of the deceased is found on railway premises. This Court held that the initial burden would be on the claimant, which could be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts. Once the claimant did so, the burden would then shift to the Railways. Significantly, it also held that the mere absence of a ticket would not negate the claim that the deceased was a bona fide passenger. The relevant extract from the ruling of the Court is reproduced below:

"29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that the injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere ab