Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
C. Dhanapal – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India owing Southern Railway, Rep. by its General Manager, Chennai – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1373 of 2017
Decided On : 02-08-2023
Railway Claims Tribunal Act - Compensation - Section 16 r/w 123 (c) (2) and 124-A - The court discussed the burden of proof on the claimant, the definition of a bona fide passenger, and the presumption against the railways to rebut the claim. Key legal provisions include Section 124-A of the Railways Act and the interpretation of the definition of a bona fide passenger as established by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a claim for compensation under Section 16 r/w 123 (c) (2) and 124-A of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, for the death of a passenger in an untoward incident. The Tribunal dismissed the claim, stating that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and not a victim of an untoward incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and a victim of an untoward incident based on the evidence presented. The court also held that the burden of proof was on the railways to prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, which they failed to do.
Issues: The issues revolved around the definition of a bona fide passenger, burden of proof, and the presumption against the railways to rebut the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of the definition of a bona fide passenger as established by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the burden of proof placed on the claimant. The court also emphasized the presumption against the railways to rebut the claim.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed, and the respondent-Southern Railway was directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant along with 9% interest from the date of the accident till the date of payment.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, against the order dated 27.08.2015 made in O.A.No.(II-U) 325 of 2013 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench.)
1.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the applicant against the order of dismissal in O.A.No.(II-U) 325/2013, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chennai Bench, wherein, the Tribunal has dismissed the Claim Petition filed, for the death of one Kanthayee in untoward incident.
2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to status and ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The case of the applicant is as follows:
The applicant is the son of the deceased Kanthayee, was self employee, on 23.10.2011 at about 19.00 hours, while detraining from Erode to Jolarpet Passenger Train at Neikarapatti, Railway Station, accidentally fell down and succumbed to injuries at about 22.55hours. Hence, application filed under Section 16 r/w 123 (c) (2) and 124-A of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation.
4. The respondent -Southern Railway has filed the counter and contended that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger and the incident was one other than fall from the train, for which, the respondent is not liable to pay the compensation under Section 124 -A of the Railways Act.
5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the applicant, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked.
6. Based on the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal has held in issue No.1 that the deceased Kanthayee was not a bonafide passenger and the deceased was not a victim of an untoward incident and thereby, rejected the claim of the applicant.
1. Aggrieved over the above finding, the applicant has filed this appeal, challenging the finding of the fact that the deceased was not a victim of untoward incident.
2.
8. The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the deceased was died, while detraining at Neikarapatti Railway Station. The report of the DRM, Salem Division, dated 04.09.2014 is confirming the same. But the Tribunal based on the non availability of passenger ticket has wrongly concluded that the applicant has failed to prove the fact that the deceased is an authorised passenger.
9. The burden of proof placed on the applicant is not sustainable and the Tribunal has failed to invoke the presumption relating to authorised passenger has held by the catena of Judgments passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court. He has also relied on the Judgments of this Court passed in Union of India, Southern Railway, representing by its General Manager, Chennai vs. G.Loganayaki and others reported in 2008 (1) TCJ 108 (Tamil Nadu Current Judgment) 108; The Union of India, Southern Railway, representing by its General Manager vs. G.Jayalakshmi and others reported in 2012 (3) CTC 741. The Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Bandana Misra vs. Union of India reported in 2017 ACJ 2447; Union of India vs. Rina Devi reported in 2018 INSC 469 : 2019 (3) SCC 572.
10. The learned counsel for the Southern Railway would submit that the DRM report relied on by the applicant shows that there is no ticket was found with the deceased, since the deceased has travelled as a non fair paying passenger, she could not be claimed compensation as a victim of untoward accident, the Tribunal after considering the evidence placed on record has rightly arrived its conclusion and prays to confirm the same. He has also relied on the judgment of this Court in C.M.A.No.3165 of 2019 in P.Pavalendiri and 4 others vs. The Union of India, Southern Railway, representing by its General Manager.
11. I have considered the submissions made by both sides and also perused the materials.
12. The DRM report dated 10.02.2014 regarding the occurrence is marked as Ex.A1 before the Tribunal. On a perusal of the same,
The main legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof on the claimant, the definition of a bona fide passenger, and the presumption against the railways to rebut the claim.
The burden of proof lies on the Railway Administration to establish the deceased's status as a bona fide passenger, and the absence of a ticket does not necessarily negate this claim.
The burden of proof lies on the railway administration to prove that a deceased passenger was not a bona fide passenger.
The Court ruled that in compensation claims for railway accidents, the presumption is that a passenger holds a valid ticket, shifting the burden of proof to railways to disprove this status.
The court established that minor discrepancies in documentation do not negate a claim for compensation under the Railways Act when substantial evidence supports the claim of an untoward incident.
Lost ticket does not disprove bona fide passenger status if supported by witness statements and official reports confirming fall from running train.
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
