The absence of a train journey ticket does not disqualify a claim for compensation if sufficient evidence shows the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

The appeal is filed by appellants/claimants questioning the judgment dated 18.12.2024 passed in Claim Application No.OA (II U)/SBC/0052/2023 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, thereby, the application filed by the claimants is dismissed.

2. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was the resident of Kudali of Hunasagi Taluk and was a businessman. His grandmother had a paralysis attack and the deceased accompanied his grandmother to Karawar for her treatment. After completion of treatment, the deceased left from Karawar and went to Bengaluru for his contract work. Therefore, he informed his children over phone that he would be proceeding to Bengaluru. Thereafter, on 03.06.2022 he was travelling by train and during the course of journey, he fell down accidentally from the train and as a result of which, he sustained injuries and died on the spot. The application filed by the claimants was dismissed by the Tribunal on the reason that the deceased was not the bonafide passenger as the claimants have not produced the journey ticket.

3. Questioning the decision made in the claim petition, the claimants filed the appeal by raising various grounds and the learned counsel for the appellants in consonance with the grounds raised has submitted that the deceased was the bonafide passenger and after purchasing the journey ticket he was travelling, but due to jerk and jolt fell down accidentally from the train and died and in this process the ticket might have lost. Therefore, this fact is deposed in the affidavit evidence. Therefore, the claimants have discharged their initial burden, but it is the burden on the respondent-Union of India to discharge, but the respondent has not discharged their burden. Therefore, by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA VS. RINA DEVI , (2019) 3 SCC 572 , learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was the bonafide passenger. Hence, prays to allow the appeal and pay compensation.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India submitted that though the dead body was found on the railway track, but there is no journey ticket recovered from the body of the deceased. Therefore, the deceased was not the bonafide passenger, which is rightly considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal.

5. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition only on the reason that the journey ticket was not recovered from the body of the deceased. Therefore, the deceased was not the bonafide passenger. Hence, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition.

6. Under these facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RINA DEVI at paragraph Nos.26, 27, 28 and 29 has laid down the law as under:

“26. Conflict of decisions has been pointed out on the subject. As noticed from the statutory provision, compensation is payable for death or injury of a “passenger”. In Raj Kumari [Raj Kumari v. Union of India, 1992 SCC OnLine MP 96 : 1993 ACJ 846] referring to the scheme of the Railways Act, 1890, it was observed that since travelling without ticket was punishable, the burden was on the Railway Administration to prove that passenger was not a bona fide passenger. The Railway Administration has special knowledge whether ticket was issued or not. The 1989 Act also has similar provisions being Sections 55 and 137. This view has led to an inference that any person dead or injured found on the railway premises has to be presumed to be a bona fide passenger so as to maintain a claim for compensation. However, the Delhi High Court in Gur